Bug#170382: acknowledged by developer (Bug#170382: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20021025-4)
From: Christian Kurz <shorty@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#170382: acknowledged by developer (Bug#170382: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20021025-4)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:01:43 +0100
> > 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?
Did you read "unless we have a reasonable, good, global design."?
Only with tetex-bin, base, extra, when we updated to
the current 20021025 version, some files were moved from
tetex-bin to tetex-base and also from tetex-base to tetex-bin.
Then we needed to set Replaces/Conflicts with precise version
number with each other.
And according to the many requests, we tried to move
pdftex/latex stuffs from tetex-extra to tetex-base
and so the same kind of modifications with dependency
were necessary.
If we splitted tetex to 20 or 30 small packages, then
the situation would be much complicated and the dependency
could be messed up.
Further if we split without "a reasonable, good, global design"
it might possible that the splitted tetex-foo and tetex-bar
might be revealed that they should be merged and the reverse
situation also could happen.
This could be called unstable, I guess.
> > then you already installed extra 38 Mb package, so you could
>
> koma-script. Some time ago I found that one can even download
> koma-script as a seperate package and install it locally. After I
# Hmm, I'm not sure but it might be realistic solution to
# request packages, e.g. koma-script or perl-tk, etc
# which can work and coexist only with tetex-bin and tetex-base.
I have a feeling you think teTeX as a union of mutually
disjoint components but it was wrong.
As I said before teTeX consisted of TeX itself and many other
related components and Thomas rearranged them in a consistent
way with fairy good design. If we split it again then there
is almost no reason to use teTeX.
For example, texdoctk is splitted in the teTeX so we have
/usr/bin/texdoctk in tetex-bin and its supporting stuffs
in tetex-extra.
kohda@nsx:~/public_html/debian/experiment$ dpkg -L tetex-bin | grep texdoctk
/usr/share/man/man1/texdoctk.1.gz
/usr/bin/texdoctk
kohda@nsx:~/public_html/debian/experiment$ dpkg -L tetex-extra | grep texdoctk
/etc/texdoctk
/etc/texdoctk/texdoc-100.dat
/etc/texdoctk/texdoc-102.dat
/etc/texdoctk/texdoc-103.dat
/etc/texdoctk/texdocrc
/usr/share/doc/texmf/texdoctk
/usr/share/doc/texmf/texdoctk/README.gz
/usr/share/texmf/texdoctk
so we need texdoctk-bin and texdoctk-base if we split
tetex? But when texdoctk was its own package, they
were all in one.
So if it is really needed to split TeX (and related)
packages to small packages I guess it is much better not
to use teTeX from the beginning but it would be another hard
task (and then perhaps we need another Thomas in Debian)
Thanks, 2003.1.7(Tue)
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Reply to: