On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 10:54:38PM +0000, Daniel Glassey wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: wdg@debian.org > X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > > Package name : teckit > Version : 2.5.4~svn140 > Upstream Author : Jonathan Kew > URL : https://scripts.sil.org/TECkit > License : LGPL-2+ or CPL-0.5+ > > Description: > TECkit provides a generic library and tools for converting data to and from > Unicode and also from one Unicode encoding to another. > It also includes a compiler for a description language that allows for > birectional conversion description (the same description is used for > conversion to and from Unicode, for example). > > The binary packages are planned to be: > > teckit -- encoding conversion tools > libteckit0 -- encoding conversion library > (which will be used by perl and python bindings) > libteckit-dev -- development files for encoding conversion library Hi, I'm preparing a package for teckit. The compiler part of it, teckit_compile is included in texlive-binaries as a static binary. I'm preparing the package with the libraries as the libraries can be used by python and perl bindings, and there are a couple of other useful binaries too (sfconv and txtconv). I'm planning to include the relevant patches from the texlive source. I don't think it would be a good idea for this package to depend on texlive-binaries. So, what should we do about teckit_compile? Would it make sense for texlive-binaries to depend on teckit? Regards, Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature