Re: More fine-grained control in texlive?
On Jun 28 2007, Frank Küster wrote:
> Rogério Brito <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Can I suggest you some partitions? For instance, we have
> > texlive-math-extra, but we don't have texlive-math-recommended, which I
> > would like to see for consistency purposes (and it would be useful too).
> Can you give a concrete suggestion with sizes?
Well, regarding the sizes, I have not yet thought, but one thing that I
see that is more or less intriguing for a mere user is the following:
1 - in tl-science, we have:
alg, algorith2e, algorithmicx, algorithms, pseudocode, clrscode,
complexity, computational-complexity, galois
These are strictly mathematic/computer science packages. Perhaps we
could have them in a tl-math-recommended?
2 - is tl-doc-base really mandatory?
3 - can we move some fonts out of tl-math-extra?
4 - in the current debian distribution, we have the package rcs-latex
and tl-latex-recommmended mentions that it has rcs. Is this a
5 - the package euler (for math) is in tl-latex-recommended, while
eulervm (which I heard is the preferred choice) is in
tl-latex-extra. Is this correct?
6 - just for consistency's sake, we have beton (for text) in
tl-fonts-extra. I would like to see it in tl-latex-recommended, if
possible (so that we can typeset a text using the fonts from
> > Can we migrate fonts from -extra to -recommended?
> That would require a new orig.tar.gz, but it's not impossible.
Regarding sizes, here is what I have, after installing the packages for
(basic) (math) typesetting in my system:
Notice that the majority of the packages here are from texlive. Some
> > And can we fix some descriptions of packages? I see that some don't
> > have description, were it would be quite useful for the packages to
> > have.
> That's easy, just send the packages and the new description.
Ah, this I can help.
One thing that I would like to know about the way you all built the
infrastructure is the tpm* files. What are they exactly? I want to join
some forces on helping you. Unfortunately, my students declined the job
of working with LaTeX.
> > I can say more precisely which migrations I would implement or which
> > captions we could have described, but let me first know if this is
> > intended.
> The current splitting of texlive is along upstream's "collection-*", and
> this I wouldn't want to change.
I'm not familiar with upstream. I guess that I will check to see how
they organize the packages.
> But where each collection ends up (in which source and binary package)
> is a matter of our choice, and we haven't had much feedback about that
> AFAICT. So I would say: Yes, I'm happy to discuss this.
Thank you very much for being open about this subject, Frank!
> On the other hand, such movements do cause maintainance overhead: Not
> only do we need to add Replaces, also other packages which
> (Build)-Depend on texlive need to be adjusted. One could say that
> right now, where most people have not yet switched to texlive, is the
> right moment.
I agree 100%.
> On the other hand, we want the packages to stabilize and move to
> testing, and from August texlive will be in low-maintainance mode
> (unless someone, could be a non-DD, steps up and says they have free
> time in summer...) since Norbert and I will be hardly available.
I am rbrito-guest on alioth. When you gain enough confidence on my job,
you could add me as a contributor to the project.
Oh, BTW, I will quite possibly have my key signed by a friend that is a
Debian Developer and I intend to enter the New Maintainer's Queue.
Thank you very much, Rogério.
Rogério Brito : email@example.com : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/