more comments on DDP policy
3.5.2 Debian package
* Source package: (contains SGML source only)
Why is it necessary to include all this gunk. This is just standard
package naming. I think this should be eliminated.
The latter format is preferred even if you are the upstream.
Why is it recommended to use this numbering? Seems silly to me.
This is a virtual package which installs packages of all
languages. (FIXME: this is debatable. Currently many
package like this just install the English original.)
Use of this name for the English package,
packagename-en_version_all.deb is discouraged.
This is the actual package which installs each language.
I only mildly disagree with this. I'm thinking it's best to ship all
languages in _all.deb. But I think it's silly to have all these -ja
and -sp etc packages, leads to package bloat. Ideally i18n stuff is
shipped in a special way in the .deb files that can be stripped or
better yet not downloaded if local configuration is against it; less
ideal but also functional is a post-install purger akin to
apt-localepurge. I'm looking at adding something that does this
to doc-base once the i18n work is done.
Is this section even necesary? Are there really manuals that can't
use default pool sizes? If there are, wouldn't that be a TeX bug?
Also, that's not how TeX is spelled.
Suggest the be a note that doc-base entries are recommended, if not
...Adam Di Carlo..<email@example.com>...<URL:http://www.onshored.com/>