Re: latex-cjk, texlive, and TeX Policy

[Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>]

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:

> On Mit, 28 Dez 2005, Danai SAE-HAN wrote:
>> > >  * c90enc, garuda and norasi are provided in latex-cjk-thai.
>> > 
>> > Does that mean that you will replace the thailatex package, which
>> > provides tfm, afm and pfb files for garuda and norasi?
>> 
>> latex-cjk-thai depends on thailatex because of the .pfb Type1 and
>> Adobe Font Metrics, but it provides its own TFM files, because the
>> ligatures that CJK uses are incompatible with those of thailatex.
>> They are named differently (in CJK: fgdb8z, ftnb8z, etc., according to
>> Karl Berry's `fontname' scheme).
>
> Hmm, this will pose a big problem for me, as this package is still using
> the old layout (/etc/texmf/map/...), which doesn't work with texlive
> package. I guess I have to add a hack (like in tetex3) that this works.

Or we NMU thailatex.  A bit of work.

> Frank, Danai, is it really THAT necessary to have it this way? Will the
> texlive packages *never* pass the ftpmaster if I don't do the permanent
> slice out?

I think our users are better served if the stuff is in a well-maintained
texlive package (that can be installed on top of teTeX, too), than if it
is in a badly maintained separate package.  Of course, if we can't even
get into discussion with the current maintainers about the updates
needed (getting a short "go ahead" as with tipa in the best case, and
nothing at all in the worst), we cannot expect to clarify whether they
are willing to maintain the package well in the long run, or rather give
it away to texlive.

I believe that also the ftpmasters can be convinced in this direction.
We (read: you...) should put together a list of packages that create
problems.  The list should provide information

- whether there's also a problem with teTeX 3.0

- how the package has been maintained (up-to-date with upstream?
  reaction to bug reports?)

- whether a patch is available, since when, and who wrote it

With this, and one example like thailatex spelled out in detail, we
should be able to convince Jörg.

I think the strategy could be to upload texlive basically as-is, that is
without conflicts and without provides if possible.  Then we file bugs
against the separate package ("shadows texlives newer version, breaking
its functionality") and finally take them over (I'm not sure whether
it's better to just Provide them, make sure the version number is newer,
and request the removal of the old package, or to create a dummy
package). 

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer