Re: More fine-grained control in texlive?
Rogério Brito <rbrito@ime.usp.br> 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?
> Can we migrate fonts from -extra to -recommended?
That would require a new orig.tar.gz, but it's not impossible.
> 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.
> 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. 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.
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. 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.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: