Re: [comp.text.tex] Re: [Q] where is pifont.sty?
Ralf Stubner <Ralf.Stubner@physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
> rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
>
>> sigh. psnfss is a required package, which means that *any* other
>> package is entitled to assume it's present (hence the present
>> problem).
I wasn't aware of this problem. We should really fix this; however I am
not going to touch the splitting scheme for the teTeX packages that are
targetted for sarge. Will you open a bug report on it - I'd say,
severity important?
>> 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.
There are already a couple of bugs requesting a better splitting.
Nobody had time to do this soon after woody was released, and when I and
Hilmar entered the scene we thought that it was too close before the
sarge release (well, it wouldn't have been, but who knew that?). I
still have some hope that teTeX 3.0 can go into sarge eventually; but as
soon as this is settled, I'll start working on the splitting stuff.
> The 'TeX Live for Debian' project help here in the long run, though.
There will be teTeX packages also when TeX-live packages become usable,
so this *has* to be fixed.
> 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.
I do not know. I know hardly anything about the internals of TeX
fonts. Probably this is just a historical thing, with no reason today.
Again, I'll not remove the dependency for sarge, there might still be
some possible breakage.
By the way, have you actually looked at the cyrillic bug in gsfonts?
Can it be fixed?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: