Bug#100332: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian

[Julian Gilbey <jdg@polya.uklinux.net>]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
> Julian Gilbey <jdg@polya.uklinux.net> wrote:
> 
> > Is it really necessary to reduce the package as much as necessary for
> > the buildds?  Wouldn't a more useful goal for a larger number of users
> > be to break the package into a "core" package, which is the "common"
> > stuff (somewhat arbitrarily defined), which would include what you
> > have said plus (pdf)e(la)tex, mf(-nowin), metapost and maybe a small
> > amount of other stuff, and an -extra package for everything else.  The
> > difference to the buildds would be very minor, but for the users could
> > be significant.  (Note that I'm not advocating things which would
> > bring in extra package dependencies.)
> 
> This sounds very sensible.  After all, we *will* continue to have lots
> of "ordinary" users, and we should care for them.  If we choose to go
> that way, it is even more important that tetex-base should contain the
> complete tex/latex directory, and not be deprived of custom-bib,
> koma-script, minitoc and others, as Ralf once suggested.

So which direction should we go for: -core for the autobuilders or
-core for average Joe User (including all autobuilder core
functionality)?

   Julian