[comp.text.tex] Re: [Q] where is pifont.sty?
rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
> Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@web.de> writes:
> >Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren <roffe@klodrik.uio.no> writes:
> >> Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@web.de> writes:
> >>> Do you have 'tetex-extra' installed? IMO you can't do any real LaTeX
> >>> related work without this package.
> >>
> >> thanks for the tip. that helped a lot! this ought to come up as a
> >> suggested package when installing tetex.
> >
> >Well, tetex-extra is a suggested (though not recommended) package:
> >
> >------------------------------
> >$ apt-cache show tetex-base
> >Package: tetex-base
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Recommends: tetex-doc (>> 2.0)
> >Suggests: tetex-extra
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >Description: Basic library files of teTeX
> > This is a subset of all teTeX library files provided by Debian.
> > It should give you a working basic LaTeX system.
> > .
> > Together with tetex-bin you'll have a minimal installation. For
> > a full installation of teTeX, you should also install tetex-extra.
> >------------------------------
> >
> >However, I am not sure if it makes sense to have tetex-doc and
> >tetex-extra on different level. You might want to contact the debian
> >teTeX maintainers about this.
>
> sigh. psnfss is a required package, which means that *any* other
> package is entitled to assume it's present (hence the present
> problem).
>
> keen as i am on documentation, i would claim tetex-doc is _less_
> important than "tetex-extra" (as they're pleased to call it).
The problem with tetex-doc is that e.g. you must not distibute KOMA
Script (part of tetex-base) without its documentation. Having tetex-doc
recommended is sort of an compromise here. However, since PSNFSS is a
required part of LaTeX, you can't install a LaTeX system with only
tetex-base and tetex-bin. Oh well ...
Let's say that splitting teTeX into smaller pieces is difficult and that
the way Debian does it right now is less than ideal. The 'TeX Live for
Debian' project help here in the long run, though.
I am keeping the full message and CCing the Debian teTeX maintainers.
BTW, to the Debian teTeX maintainers: Why does tetex-extra depend on
gsfonts, even though it includes the (original) URW fonts? Shipping the
original URW fonts is a good idea, since there are quite a few bugs in
the new version with added cyrillic characters.
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: