Re: texlive new planned upload to experimental
On 10502 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
> 1) packages names and source packages
> =====================================
>
> The packages have been renamed according to standards used in Debian, as
> discussed in the above mentioned thread. Furthermore, there are now only
> five source packages (texlive-bin for arch=any, and texlive-doc,
> texlive-lang, texlive-base, texlive-extra) grouped after importance and
> arch.
Thats ok. Way better than the number you had before.
> Some TeX packages are not included in the source and binary debian packages,
> as they are in Debian and need only some fixes (prosper, texpower,
> tpslifonts, tipa, lcdf-typetools). These packages have been repackaged
> (only changed control file) and put on the tug server [3] for interim use.
If the patches are good for Debian i think the maintainer(s) will love a
patch in the bts.
> More packages are in the process of being singled out respectivly updated
> in the Debian repository, to reduce duplication.
Good.
> Packages depending only on teTeX but working with texlive have been
> repackaged (only control file edited) and put onto the tug server [3] to be
> used with the texlive packages. As soon as texlive enters Debian, I will
> file bugs to the respective packages.
"repackaged" is misleading, patched sounds more like what you did. You
should submit the patches whenever texlive hits unstable, yes.
For me it sounds good. Tne last and final comment will be given when i
have the package in NEW, but from what I read in the -devel discussion i
think it wont have much problems.
--
bye Joerg
<Christian> bignachos: the famous pornview maintainer?
<HoserHead> Christian: *don't* ask why he's typing so slowly
<bignachos> hey, at least i thoroughly test my packages
Reply to: