Re: New upload of the teTeX packages
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Masayuki Hatta wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Masayuki,
> Great! I'm tweaking tetex-bin too, so if you like some of my hacks, I
> can help you (not finished yet, so I think you should upload your
> package anyway)
I don't do such big changes as you plan (I do only small changes), so it
should be easy for you to build your changes upon my package.
> What I was trying are:
>
> o Move to 20001218 beta
That's what I am doing,too. (very easy - there are only extremely small
changes to two files).
> o Move to debhelper v3
>
> joeyh recommended this.
There's one thing I hate in debhelper v3: You have to move the files for
all packages (including the first one) out of debian/tmp and when you
forget files they are in none of the packages.
It would perhaps be more important if someone would work on using debconf.
> o Patch-And-Tarball structure
>
> Like libc6 package, source package contains only pristine source
> tarball and patches, not unpacked sources. I mean:
>
> $ ls tetex-bin-1.0.7+20001218
>
> debian/
> prep.sh
> teTeX-src-beta-20001218.tar.gz
> version
>
> and prep.sh(called from debian/rules) would take care of unpacking
> tarball, applying patchs, etc.
I do personally prefer to use the "normal" way of packaging because then
you have your changes in the diff and you don't have to generate the diffs
yourself. I think libc6 has much more patches than the tetex-* packages.
> I think, by this re-organization, updating package will be more easier
> for maintainers. Also this will make our changes in Debian package
> more obvious.
>
> o Added Japanese support to xdvi and dvips
>
> I'll talk about it in a separate mail.
My personal opinion is that such changes should go to upstream first since
I don't like it when the programs in Debian behave other than the programs
upstream makes (and it makes it harder to send bugs upstream - you have to
check if the bug exists in the original program, too) - but that's only my
personal opinion.
> BTW it was too tough for me to divide tetex-bin, but I really think we
> should do(it's too big!). At least we should separate xdvi(depends on
> X) and dvips(magicfilter etc. wants only this, a wishlist bug already
> filed) from tetex-bin.
There were ideas of a big reorganisation of the tetex-* packages. That's
better than to split this or that program from one of the packages (but I
think this should be done with several people working on it and it's
something that is too late for woody).
> Best regards,
> MH
cu
Adrian
--
Nicht weil die Dinge schwierig sind wagen wir sie nicht,
sondern weil wir sie nicht wagen sind sie schwierig.
Reply to: