Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Josselin Mouette <email@example.com> wrote:
> Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 19:08 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
>> Steve Langasek <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> >> The source of teTeX is a *subset* of TeXLive's source, modulo versions.
>> > Then we definitely shouldn't need two copies of it!
>> Er, it sounds to me like what people are saying is: "Yeah it would be great
>> and desirable to have no duplication between tetex and texlive, and we're
>> going to try to do that -- but it's _a lot of work_, and we'd like to
>> approach that ideal in stages."
>> That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
> It sounds to me more like they are trying to keep both texlive and tetex
> in the archive, even in the long term. And *that* doesn't look
We are trying to *get* both into the archive; and I don't see how
texlive could replace tetex for etch. But I agree with you that we
should reconsider the question later.
Personally, I assume there will be reasons to keep teTeX; whether they
are strong enough compared to the archive bloat (and the dispersal of
mantainer power) in the long run, that remains to be seen.
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich