[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: a nitpicky reading of policy

Branden Robinson <branden@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
> > So, I propose the following compromise:
> > 
> >   * Downgrade xfree86-common and xlib6g from standard to optional; AND
> >   * Modify section 5.8 to say that creating X and non-X versions of a
> >     package is permissible *ONLY* if the non-X version qualifies for
> >     standard priority.  The X-dependent component can have optional or
> >     extra priority.

On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 12:08:07PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> I think this is a good idea (as long as not too many extra packages
> pop up because of this.)

I can see some merit to this, but I think the issue is that the
X version fails to provide all the functionality of the non-X

[This is the case for vim, if I recall correctly.  Are there any
other examples where we have x and non-x versions?]

> > On a completely different subject, I'm not so sure that TeX and LaTeX
> > should really be standard. [reasons snipped]

LaTex, I agree.  TeX, maybe -- I'd like to see your reasons.


Reply to: