Re: Various questions concerning TeX live
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 18:55 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> * mktexnam
> I have already applied the patch to the next generation of
> packages.
Good.
> Ralf, if you hack something with tempfile, please sent
> it to me. So we can go on with the rest.
Not at the moment (see other thread).
> * TeX live upstream changes tpm games
> I collected what was discussed, here is a list:
> * fpl/mathpazo
> move fpl from fonts-extra to fonts-recommended
> move mathpazo from math-extra to latex-recommended
>
> Reason: PSNFSS ask for these fonts
>
> * charter
> move charter from fonts-extra to fonts-recommended
>
> Reason: PSNFSS mentions it
In case you see any difference between 'mentioned' and 'asked for'
fonts; IMO these fonts are on the same level wrt PSNFSS.
> * rsfs
> move rsfs from fonts-extra to fonts-recommended
Same here, font is asked for/mentioned by PSNFSS.
> * (HA-prosper)/beamer/powerdot
> (old) prosper is in latex-recommended
> beamer and powerdot in latex-extra
>
> Exchange?
That would be a possibility. But I am not usre if it makes sense to
implement such random comments allready.
> * jurabib/juramisc
> move jurabib from lang-de to latex-extra
bibtex-extra would be more appropriate IMO (and latex-extra is to large
allready ;-)
[...]
> * publishers
> move from latex-extra to publishers
>
> Reason: the name?
What I meant was that tl-publishers is meant for styles specific for
certain journals etc. But there are quite a few such styles in
tl-latex-extra, too. IMO it would make sense to move them to the other,
similar styles.
> * Remove collection-pdfetex and move all the files into latex-base?
I think in TL (but not in TL for Debian) collection-pdfetex contains the
actual pdfetex binary. If this is the case, then one has to consider
this more carefully and only the Debian package tl-pdfetex is
questionable, while the TL collection might still make sense. I am not
sure how to handle such a situation, though.
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: