Bug#219630: texdoctk: missing some important documentation
From: frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)
Subject: Bug#219630: texdoctk: missing some important documentation
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 09:16:42 +0100
> "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.
Well, I've not used texdoctk except to check bug reports ;)
That said, please remark that update-texmf, update-fmtutil
and update-updmap are essentially necessary for additional
TeX packages to be **installable** and/or **usable**.
Also, there were explicit requests for such mechanism for
a long time.
It might be (not so sure yet but) good to provide a script
to generate texdoctk.dat but its priority might be a bit lower
than that of the other update-* scripts.
> > I'd love to see a Gnome2 version of texdoctk. Perhaps that will make an
> > easy first project?
>
> Hm, I don't use Gnome
Me neither, further I have no knowledge on Gnome....
> 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.
Right.
Regards, 2003-11-13(Thu)
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Reply to: