Re: New upload of the teTeX packages<Pine.NEB.4.33.0103242256010.13340-100000@tethys.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de>
From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>
Subject: Re: New upload of the teTeX packages<Pine.NEB.4.33.0103242256010.13340-100000@tethys.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2001 10:59:27 +0200 (CEST)
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2001, Masayuki Hatta wrote:
>
> > o Added Japanese support to xdvi and dvips
>
> BTW:
> - What's wrong with the xdvik-ja package?
> - It seems there was a dvipsk-ja package that is no longer in the archive.
> Does anyone know the history of this package?
Nothing is wrong with xdvik-ja and dvipsk-ja but I think
there is one point to be considered.
It will be very good if tetex-bin uses alternatives to
define 'xdvi' and 'dvips' command.
Lets think of dvipsk-ja for example, then users who install
dvipsk-ja can easily select which of tetex-bin or dvipsk-ja is
called with the standard name 'dvips' by default. This is very
important for users.
Furthermore in case there is problems with dvips command, we can
check easily whether the problem is of the original dvips or of the
japanization patch if the 'dvips' is defined with alternatives.
The present tetex-bin uses alternatives for xdvi.bin but this
is not so useful because if xdvik-ja uses this alternative to
link xdvi.bin points to xdvi-ja.real it is not easy to test
'xdvi' of tetex-bin and of xdvik-ja at the same time. But
if 'xdvi' itself is defined through alternatives then it is
easy to test 'xdvi' of tetex-bin and of xdvik-ja at the same time.
So I request strongly that tetex-bin uses alternatives to define
'xdvi' and 'dvips' command for woody!
Best Regards, 2001.4.2
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Reply to: