Bug#100332: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian
Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@web.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 16:28 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> I expect that teTeX will continue to be the standard package for
>> creating documentation when building a Debian package, and I think that
>> we should try to develop our splitting schemes mainly along the needs of
>> this application. End users will probably just install everything, or
>> switch to tex-live.
>
> I think we should already think about the coexistance with TeX Live. I
> don't know if there are many TeX Live packages that don't include files
> that are also in teTeX. And how to be sure that the dependencies
> speciefied by some TeX Live package are fulfilled by the teTeX packages
> installed?
Do you think it should be possible to have combinations like
"tetex-bin, tetex-base plus ConTeXt from texlive"? Or do you think that
someone will want tetex-extra on top of some parts of texlive?
As far as I can see it, the only coexistence that we should really try
to make possible is that one can install fonts or LaTeX packages from
texlive if they do not exist in tetex at all. And this won't depend on
our splitting scheme, AFAICS.
[tetex-base]
>> - the complete tex/latex directory,
>
> Actually some directories with font support should go to tetex-extra
> (lucidabr, txfonts, pxfonts, ...).
ACK.
> If one has to split tex/latex anyway,
> one might also move some large packages that probably aren't used as
> build-dependence. Incomplete list with decreasing size: custom-bib,
> koma-script, minitoc, jurabib, memoir, ntgclass ...
If someone finds time to sort that out, this would be worth trying.
>> - everything else that is needed to run LaTeX
>
> and plain TeX. (at least that's what the policy says IIRC)
I guess that won't be many files. Oh, well, again we have to decide
which parts of tex/generic we want.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: