Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote:
> Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 19:08 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
>> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.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
> reasonable.
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.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: