Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?

To: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>, Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net>
Cc: Eythan Weg <eythanweg@gmail.com>, "debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org" <debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
From: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 15:42:36 +0900
Message-id: <[🔎] 20130502064236.GA9485@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20130501184947.GB26057@d-and-j.net> <[🔎] 87ehdqeeus.fsf@riesling.miltenberg.kuesterei.ch>
References: <[🔎] 87ehdqeeus.fsf@riesling.miltenberg.kuesterei.ch> <[🔎] 20130501184947.GB26057@d-and-j.net> <20130426041211.GA24374@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <874nesgz5d.fsf@riesling.miltenberg.kuesterei.ch> <6A01AC90-79D2-495F-ADAC-9AC060DA6BA3@logic.at> <87ppxekeqh.fsf@gmail.com> <BDC09410-B37A-4DB9-95CE-AC6512F63D41@logic.at> <87k3nmk4fy.fsf@gmail.com> <904A1A5F-2FA9-413F-A4BF-D0E220CFDAE6@logic.at> <[🔎] 87ehdqeeus.fsf@riesling.miltenberg.kuesterei.ch>

Hi Frank, hi Julian,

On Mi, 01 Mai 2013, Frank Küster wrote:
> If there are separately maintained packages, one single tree forces us
> and the separate maintainer to coordinate.  

Why? (see below)

> Back then, the reason for the separation was that the TeX system on
> Debian, teTeX, had very slow release cycles.  The idea was to have fast
> developping packages in a separate tree, overriding the older files from
> teTeX. This does not make sense nowadays.

And in addition, is different in TeX Live (see below)

On Mi, 01 Mai 2013, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> standard config, say /usr/share/texmf-debian/ or similar for other
> potential future packages?  But that's probably a silly idea.

Yes.

> At the moment, in testing, there are quite a few packages which put
> files in /usr/share/texmf, including context, tipa, lmodern, feynmf,
> preview-latex-style, writer2latex, noweb, and many more.  I haven't
> been keeping up with texlive (sorry :-( ), so I don't know how this
> would work together with texlive if texlive "takes over"
> /usr/share/texmf.  I'm assuming that, if the files do not exist in
> texlive, that it will not be a problem.

THe do *not* exist in TeX Live, or at least that is the theory.

I have blacklisted *all* packages that are separately maintained,
and don't ship them in the TeX Live packages.

And this should be also the policy.

Of course, if a new package starts to be separately maintained, there
is some action required from our side, ie. a new texlive upload that
does not ship the now separately maintained package. But I guess
this is not happening too often.

All the currently separately maintained packages should *not* conflict
file-wise wiht TeX Live.

Does this explain my idea better?

Norbert

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREINING, Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
  - From: eythanweg@gmail.com (Eythan Weg)
- Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
  - From: frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)

References:
- Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
  - From: frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)
- Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
  - From: Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net>

Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
Next by Date: Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
Previous by thread: Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
Next by thread: Re: [RFC] TL2013 and again a new layout?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread