Bug#219630: texdoctk: missing some important documentation
On Mon, 2003-11-10 at 01:11, Frank Küster wrote:
> BTW, does it really make sense to put texdoctk.dat in tetex-base? It's
> clear for format files, documentclasses etc. But in this case, I'd
> rather put it into tetex-bin (although I notice it is an upstream
> decision). Also, I wouldn't put it under /etc - it's not really meant to
> be modified by a system administrator.
Perhaps it should be split out into separate files, with and "update-*"
script that builds it... so that additional tex packages can be
installed and install information about their documentation as well.
I'd love to see a Gnome2 version of texdoctk. Perhaps that will make an
easy first project?
Reply to: