Re: The Splitting of teTeX
On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 11:25:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > JG> So maybe we should, indeed, split tetex-src as well?
> >
> > I think that the source stuff should probably be split. At the
> > very least, there's no point in having the source files for, say,
> > tetex-latex-extra if you don't have the tetex-latex-extra package
> > installed.
>
> This sounds like a misunderstanding: You don't need the source (dtx) files
> for tetex-latex-extra even if you run it - it's only the copyright of some
> packages that says the sources have to be distributed on the same CD. The
> description of tetex-src says about the package:
I think you've have the same misunderstanding as me, Adrian. What is
being pointed out is that the source files in tetex-src (lots of .dtx
files and other examples) are actually useful if you are trying to
understand how the package/style file works. And so if we're
splitting the docstripped versions in tetex-{base,extra} into
subpackages, we should do the same with tetex-src.
The license issue is, indeed, present, but the files actually have
practical use as well, as has been pointed out.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, QMW, Univ. of London. J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://www.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Reply to: