Re: How to deal with teTeX's and texlive's RC licensing bugs
Frank Küster wrote:
> None of these are actual file conflicts, and since there's
> no conflict with tetex-base, either, it means they are all in a
> different place in the TEXMF tree (generic/ivritex instead of
> generic/babel). So the only purpose that the Conflicts might have is to
> prevent ivritex's files shadowing texlive's. But I don't think this
> actually warrants a Conflicts; I'd rather document it in README.Debian
> and arrange with ivritex's maintainer about who's going to provide what.
Generally speaking I would say there is no reason to conflict with any
package just because the same files are installed in some TEXMF tree.
After all, texlive has its own separate TEXMF tree. If there are
problems like the pgf package being not out of date than this is just a
bug in th package.
> We could ask him whether
> texlive should take that over post-etch (dropping xcolor support for
> tetex users, unless we create a separate package), but for etch I
> suggest P/C/R.
Actually xcolor.sty is part of teTeX 3 but is not included in the
packages since a separate package existed. So if the latex-xcolor
package is dropped, one could simply install it together with the rest
of teTeX. IMHO this would be a good idea, since xcolor by now belongs to
the 'infrastructure' that should be provided by the TeX distribution.
BTW, this raises the question whether it would make sense to have, say,
tetex-extra suggest/recommend those packages that are normally part of
teTeX (lmodern, latex-beamer, latex-xcolor, pgf, anyhting else?).
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: