Re: Adding a latex class to a debian package
On Mit, 18 Jan 2006, Ralf Stubner wrote:
> >> tetex-bin | texlive-latex-base
versus
> tetex-bin | texlive-base-bin, tetex-base | texlive-latex-base
> well as basic LaTeX files (I don't know what the class in question
> needs, but it definitly needs latex.ltx to build latex.fmt). Both the
This is the problem. It is hard to know what the actual deps are.
> tetex-bin | texlive-base-bin, tetex-base | texlive-latex-base
>
> What do the others think? Especially those with more experience than I
Definitely not a bad idea. But OTOH, it is useless, as you cannot mix
tetex-bin iwht texlive-latex-base nor texlive-base-bin with tetex-base,
so the first one would be the shortest possible which makes sense.
> >> > /usr/bin/mktexlsr
>
> Wasn't there something about maintainer scripts should not use absolute
> paths? In the TeX Policy we advocate
Completely true.
> if which mktexlsr >/dev/null; then mktexlsr; fi
Ok.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining AT logic DOT at> Università di Siena
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DUNGENESS (n.)
The uneasy feeling that the plastic handles of the overloaded
supermarket carrier bag you are carrying are getting steadily longer.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Reply to: