Re: Future of dh_installtex (was: SVN texlive (new) commit: r2484 - in texlive-new/trunk: all/debian texlive-base/debian texlive-bin/debian texlive-extra/debian texlive-lang/debian)
On Die, 20 Feb 2007, Frank Küster wrote:
> And actually there may be good reasons to do a splitting. We originally
> aimed at "It can do all, and there's more than one way to invoke it"[1],
> but this also means that it already has a bunch of commandline options,
> probably more than the usual packager wants to use.
I am against splitting. It would mean moving a lot of code into a third
module which makes everything more complicated. And then, who needs all
this additional functionality we provide, only us and maybe few else.
But we know how to use it. And the documentation is there.
The only reason I see is that the postinst/postrm code is a bit ugly in
some cases, but this has been fixed in 99% by *only* calling the auto
scripts for texlsr, ie for calling mktexlsr. Only in the case that
fonts/languages/formats are actually installed the additional code is
included.
But then again, I am open, if the majority is PRO splitting, I won't
mind. To be honest what I don't understand in the Joey svn log is what
is this magic 150 lines limit used for? What is the intention??? It
seems a bit strange to measure the complexity of a script in lines, I
could write it in much less lines, too ..
> What do you think? (We should not decide anything before Norbert is
> back to a good connection).
I think we can open the discussion ...
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Università di Siena
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PABBY (n.,vb.)
(Fencing term.) The play, or manoeuvre, where one swordsman leaps on
to the table and pulls the battleaxe off the wall.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Reply to: