[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Removing ThaiLaTeX



On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> On Di, 21 Mai 2013, Theppitak Karoonboonyanan wrote:
>> Probably a Break: against thailatex to force its removal in the future.
>
> Are there any rdepedns?

Yes. By saying "in the future", I mean, after the links to rdepends are cut off.

$ apt-cache rdepends thailatex
thailatex
Reverse Depends:
  texlive-lang-cjk
  texlive-full
  texlive-lang-cjk
  texlive-full
  latex-fonts-thai-tlwg
  latex-fonts-sipa-arundina
  latex-cjk-thai

>> No, it's not actually there.
>
> Hmm, on my computer it is...
>
>> $ apt-file search thai.ldf
>> texlive-xetex: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/polyglossia/gloss-thai.ldf
>> texlive-xetex: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xelatex/polyglossia/gloss-thai.ldf
>> thailatex: /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/thailatex/thai.ldf
>
> That is outdated:
> $ ls -l /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/babel-thai/thai.ldf
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18759 May 19 07:26 /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/babel-thai/thai.ldf
> $ dlocate thai.ldf
> texlive-xetex: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/polyglossia/gloss-thai.ldf
> thailatex: /usr/share/texmf/tex/generic/thailatex/thai.ldf
> texlive-lang-cjk: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/babel-thai/thai.ldf

Oh, the package is still NEW. That's why I did't see it.

> So that is fine.

I think it's a bit unexpected to users. Why should one install a CJK package
to typeset Thai documents? What about the huge unused font sets it pull in?

> Are you proposing something else?

Could you split babel-thai out of cjk?

And the -lang-thai package should:
- Recommends: latex-fonts-thai-tlwg, swath, texlive-latex-extra
- Suggests: latex-fonts-sipa-arundina

(The fonts are for pdfTeX;
swath is Thai word break filter for pdfTeX and LuaTeX;
texlive-latex-extra is for utf8 inputenc for pdfTeX.)

Thanks,
--
Theppitak Karoonboonyanan
http://linux.thai.net/~thep/


Reply to: