Bug#190721: splitting of texdoctk is hosed
From: Josh Buhl <uzs33d@uni-bonn.de>
Subject: Bug#190721: splitting of texdoctk is hosed
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:30:59 +0200
> Well, I'm going to wait to see what the developers say. If I close
> 190721, then 189341 will spend the rest of eternity on the wish list. If
> the developers close it, at least I'll know that they've considered my
> objection and it's out of my hands, having done what I can.
Hmm, I should say something, then?
> I still think putting a bug which breaks a package on the wish list is a
> little far fetched.
As I said before, the similar problems remain unless
we merge tetex-base and tetex-extra into only one big
tetex-base;
From: Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Subject: Bug#189341: tetex-bin: texdoctk not packaged correctly
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:48:45 +0900 (JST)
> As long as we separated texmf tree into tetex-base and
> tetex-extra, this is inevitable. Theoretically, we should
> provide tetex-base only which included both the current
> tetex-base and tetex-extra but there is a strong desire
> of users not to provide a large tetex-base.
Not only texdoctk, but amstex, metapost, eurosym, txfonts,
pxfonts etc. depend on tetex-extra at present.
If we move these stuffs to tetex-base, then at last every
stuffs in tetex-extra would be in tetex-base.
So the essential problem is how to split texmf tree, and
there is no absolute solution which will satisfys all users,
IMHO.
Have you any good design?
Thanks, 2003-4-28(Mon)
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Reply to: