On [06/01/03 9:45], Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Christian Kurz <shorty@debian.org>
> Subject: Bug#170382: acknowledged by developer (Bug#170382: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20021025-4)
> Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 10:35:05 +0100
> > Sorry, but this isn't going to fix the issue for me. I clearly explained
> > in my response to bugreport 173872 that this isn't going to fix the
> > problem for me. I told you that a move of the dependency from tetex-bin
> > to tetex-extra will not help. Therefor I restate my suggestion in my
> > original bugreport to move all binaries depending on perltk into an
> > extra package. This fix isn't going to solve the problem to me, but
> > still force me to install about 7MB of unnecessary and unneeded stuff.
> Note this is not "the issue for you" but the common or global
> issue. Then please answer my question in #173872
Do you refer to your question that you asked Josip and copied to me? If
yes, I send an reply telling you and Josip that the suggested change
wouldn't be acceptable for me.
> From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
> Subject: Bug#173872: tetex-bin: spurious dependency on perl-tk
> Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 08:43:13 +0900 (JST)
> > I suspect you didn't know the structure of teTeX.
> > It consists of TeX itself and many related components
> > found in CTAN site.
> > It gathers them in a consistent system with good design
> > so to split it to small components means to go back to
> > the start point again. In a sense, it could be vain
> > effort or we would lose a reason to use teTeX source.
> > It is not simply collected but woven in other words ;)
> ...
> > The difficult point is not lack of ability of dpkg but
> > lack of good/reasonable design to split.
> > At least, I have no real idea how to split teTeX yet.
> ...
> > Yes it could be divisible theoretically but to split it
> > in a way enough stable, reasonable and satisfactory in
> > practice could be difficult.
> You said,
> From: Christian Kurz <shorty@debian.org>
> Subject: Bug#173872: tetex-bin: spurious dependency on perl-tk
> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 13:31:26 +0100
> > It wouldn't help in my case, since tetex-extra contains koma-script
> > which I'm using for all my letters and other documents that I write with
> > the help of latex. So moving the dependency wouldn't solve the problem
> then you already installed extra 38 Mb package, so you could
That happened mostly because when I discovered koma-script and it's
usefulnes for me, I wasn't familiar with tetex in any way. So I decided
it would be easier to get some debian-package of koma-script then trying
manually to figure out how to install koma-script. I found that
tetex-extra contained koma-script and decided to install it to get
koma-script. Some time ago I found that one can even download
koma-script as a seperate package and install it locally. After I
therefor discovered that it would at least be possible to split some
stuff from tetex-extra into seperate packages, I prefer this option. But
I didn't write a bugreport about it, because I believed that you and the
other tetex maintainers would also consider splitting the package and
work on the necessary changes. But when I then was forced to install 7MB
of perl-tk stuff to still be able to use tetex, I didn't refrain from
sending a bugreport, like I did. I hope this explain a bit, why I still
have installed 38MB of tetex stuff, when I happily would reduce it to 5
or 10MB of those tetex packages that I need.
> claim tetex-extra should be splitted into koma-script and
> others and anyone could claim his/her specific desire to split
> tetex in some way.
Well, I don't say that it should be split in lots of 1MB packages, but
it should be possible to split it at least in some 5 or 10MB chunks.
> But I cann't believe this makes tetex stable and reasonable
> package unless we have a resonable, good, global design.
Pardon? Why should changing the package structure have any effect on the
stability of tetex itself?
> Please note we didn't claim we never split tetex, we already
> had splitted texinfo and cweb is now under consideration.
On the one hand that's certainly nice to hear, but on the other hand it
gives me the feeling that even 5 years from now on, there'll be only
three huge tetex packages available for Debian. I don't want to diminish
the work done by you and the other tetex-maintainers, but it sounds like
an incredible slow process.
Christian
--
Debian Developer (http://www.debian.org)
1024D/B7CEC7E8 44BD 1F9E A997 3BE2 A44F 96A4 1C98 EEF3 B7CE C7E8
Attachment:
pgp5osJ1dxpho.pgp
Description: PGP signature