Re: Future versions of teTeX, and TeXlive as a replacement
On Sat June 3 2006 04:15, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Fre, 02 Jun 2006, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > If this gets packaged it should be in the base, same reason as
> > with algorithm.sty.
>
> Just one comment: I can bring many of these topics to upstream
> attention, but I will *not* change the packaging my moving many classes
> around without specific and good argumentation.
>
> For fpl/pazo Ralf provided a good argument:PSNFSS asks for it, and since
> psnfss is required, we put the stuff into the -recommended packages.
>
> For arbitrary classes which might be of interest this will not be done.
Would it be more acceptable to split classes like that (wanted by an app,
but packaged with piles of stuff that isn't) into their own package? It
is a little more work (one time?, one-time per upstream release?) for the
packagers but could result in significant savings for users (less HDD
space used, faster upgrades), and perhaps aid developers of minimal or
live images who may have room for (say) a complete LyX installation but
not for the extras that get dragged in because of packaging.
<...>
> > Is Debian the first to tackle a tetex-texlive co-existence or transition?
>
> Yes, I tried to make the packages as good partners as possible.
No extra pressure then, eh. :-)
- Bruce
Reply to: