Bug#219630: texdoctk: missing some important documentation
"Karl M. Hegbloom" <karlheg@cs.pdx.edu> schrieb:
> 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.
Go on, if you like. I fear nobody on debian-tetex-maint has time for
that, but if you present a solution ready to incorporate it, we'll be
happy to do that (and then our work starts). Please note that from
/usr/share/doc/texmf/texdoctk/README.gz it seems that there's something
in the pipeline regarding local texmf trees; maybe you can hook into
that.
> I'd love to see a Gnome2 version of texdoctk. Perhaps that will make an
> easy first project?
Hm, I don't use Gnome - but if you think that is an improvement, go on!
For the time being, however, it would be of more value if somebody could
grep through /etc/texdoctk/texdoctk.dat and the contents of tetex-doc
and check which files are missing.
Bye,
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: