On 29.11.05 Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi,
allrunes dfsg
Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license
there.
As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the
TeX Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Frank Küster]
Why do we need two packages containing the latex command, for example?
Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
That's not equivalent. An equivalent question would be more like why
do we need N packages all
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Frank Küster]
Why do we need two packages containing the latex command, for example?
Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
That's not equivalent. An equivalent
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The source of teTeX is a *subset* of TeXLive's source, modulo versions.
Then we definitely shouldn't need two copies of it!
Er, it sounds to me like what people are saying is: Yeah it would be great
and desirable to have no duplication between tetex and
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
Peter Samuelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Frank Küster]
Why do we need two packages containing the latex command, for example?
Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 19:08 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The source of teTeX is a *subset* of TeXLive's source, modulo versions.
Then we definitely shouldn't need two copies of it!
Er, it sounds to me like what people are saying is: Yeah it
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 19:08 +0900, Miles Bader a écrit :
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The source of teTeX is a *subset* of TeXLive's source, modulo versions.
Then we definitely shouldn't need two copies of it!
Er, it sounds to
Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 11:56 +0100, Frank Küster a écrit :
We are trying to *get* both into the archive; and I don't see how
texlive could replace tetex for etch. But I agree with you that we
should reconsider the question later.
In this case, I have to agree with you.
Personally, I
Le mardi 29 novembre 2005 à 22:48 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
else in Debian and completely unable to be handled.
TeX is big, I'd expect packages to be big. How
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10488 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
allrunes dfsg
Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mardi 29 novembre 2005 à 22:48 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
There is a lot of duplication in Debian, and up to now nobody has
complaint. We are working on taking out and packagin *big* stuff (like
font packages: lmodern, cm-super) so that they
[Frank Küster]
Why do we need two packages containing the latex command, for example?
Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
That's not equivalent. An equivalent question would be more like why
do we need N packages all containing the source code for exim and
building a
Hi Miles!
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
PKG-doc
PKG-doc-LANG (LANG is usually code like fr)
Not sure, but I guess either just texlive-doc or texlive-doc-base.
Done, texlive-doc-XX
For the language stuff: Here is a problem as some languages packages are
Hi Jörg!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
bin-to-source mapping.
Hey, that looks ways better than the initial upload. Good work. :)
And with 5 sources left its also much less then what I suggested.
Thanks. I always
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
texlive-binaries-source 96M
---
texlive-basicbintexlive-base-bin
texlive-binextratexlive-extrautils
I'd suggest texline-extra-utils here, because (at least to me) extra
ok.
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Existing usage seems a bit mixed; the main common point seems to be
-LANG as a suffix. Some patterns are:
PKG-LANG
PKG-locale-LANG (this seems the most common)
PKG-l10n-LANG(openoffice uses this)
Miles Bader schrieb:
I agree -lang- is probably better than locale/l10n/i18n for the reason
you state.
However, why not use the official language codes where available (keeping
the longname where there is no code)? They mean exactly what you want,
and are widely used in debian package names
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I agree -lang- is probably better than locale/l10n/i18n for the reason
you state.
One thing please, either iso codes or longnames, not both.
longnames, as I said. lang-longname
for exactely this reason, not wanting to have different standards.
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No please. That would make confusion. Half of the packages named in one
way, half of them named the other way.
One thing please, either iso codes or longnames, not both.
I think that's wrong -- there are very few exceptions, and those are
_exceptions_ --
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Norbert Preining wrote:
allrunes dfsg
Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual
First of all, let me cast my vote for -doc-XX rather than -XX-doc. It
makes much more sense from a sorted package names point of view, which,
as others have said, is important in package manager UIs.
[Norbert Preining]
texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
Czech and Slovak are two
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Peter Samuelson wrote:
First of all, let me cast my vote for -doc-XX rather than -XX-doc. It
Already implemented.
[Norbert Preining]
texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
Czech and Slovak are two different languages, 'cs' and 'sk'. You
should check (no
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:01:25 +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Peter Samuelson wrote:
First of all, let me cast my vote for -doc-XX rather than -XX-doc. It
Already implemented.
[Norbert Preining]
texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
Czech and Slovak
Norbert Preining wrote:
And if you take a look at the texlive ml at tug.org, I can assure you
that Karl Berry is very eager in dropping everything from TeX live which
has the slightest problem with being DFSG free.
Hmm... in that case, I should mention my experience with XyMTeX, an
organic
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
Hmm... in that case, I should mention my experience with XyMTeX, an
organic chemistry LaTeX package included in TeX Live. Anyone else who
wants to comment on non-DFSG-free components of TeX Live may as well
follow up to this email.
See Debian
On 10488 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hey, that looks ways better than the initial upload. Good work. :)
And with 5 sources left its also much less then what I suggested.
Thanks. I always try to incorporate suggestions. I could even go down to
one source package, that would be easiest
Norbert Preining wrote:
To my reading that thread didn't end in a conclusion that it is not
acceptable.
Furthermore, IMHO, if it would be *not* acceptable, then we would
have to remove all, I repeat *ALL* LPPL licensed packages.
I guess this is something we don't want to have in
On 10488 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
allrunes dfsg
Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual allrunes files,
you see that it is
Le lundi 28 novembre 2005 à 08:07 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
Im also not really happy with the current packaging, starting with the too
heavy split of (source) packages.
Ok, this can be dealt with. I thought it would be better to have a
strict relation between source and bin
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
I'd go further, by asking why there must be so many binary packages. Of
course, granularity is good, but too much granularity only means
confusion. When I install a TeX system, I want a working environment
without wondering if I need to install
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
one source package, that would be easiest for me. Then we would have the
TeX live iso image, add a debian subdir and build everything. But then
again, who want's to upload 700M all the time.
No, not one single thing. Brrr.
Guess so. Would be fun,
Le mardi 29 novembre 2005 à 22:16 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
Please read the thread following the ITP. If you want teTeX, install it.
There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
software.
When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
The
Hi Josselin!
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
software.
When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
else in Debian and
On 10488 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
software.
When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
else in Debian and completely unable to
Hi Jörg!
On Mit, 30 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
software.
When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
else in Debian and
Hi Jörg, hi ftpmasters!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
binary. Better merge them into one texlive-source and build the
different binary packages out of that one. You are left with 47 sources..
Similar things can be said for the language packs, merge the *27* to one
and
BTW I think you need a few more hyphens in your package names -- stuff
like texlive-langtibetan and texlive-fontsrecommended read much
nicely as texlive-lang-tibetan and texlive-fonts-recommended.
-miles
--
`There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you thing about this scheme:
(source package with size of the .orig.tar.gz, plus included binary
packages)
Would this be an acceptable solution for you?
[...]
texlive-documentation-source 57M
texlive-documentation-base
On Nov 28 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi Jörg, hi ftpmasters!
Hi, Norbert, Jörg and others.
Here is the opinion of a long time Debian luser (and DD wannabe), based
on the naming that I am already used to with other packages.
texlive-binaries-source 96M
texlive-basicbin
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Son, 27 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Looking at the texlive packages in NEW I have some comments for you,
I can only support was Norbert has said here, no need to repeat it.
Maybe two more things:
The process of preparing Debian for having two
Hi all!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
nicely as texlive-lang-tibetan and texlive-fonts-recommended.
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Rogério Brito wrote:
texlive-binaries-source 96M
texlive-basicbin
What about texlive-bin-base?
As I said, it is true that I can arbitrary
Hi Frank!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
texlive-languages-source37M
texlive-base-source 78M
texlive-extra-source172M
Whether this is a good idea depends on a decision that, IIRC, we have
not yet talked about: Will you only provide packages of the
Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi all!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
nicely as texlive-lang-tibetan and texlive-fonts-recommended.
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Rogério Brito wrote:
texlive-binaries-source 96M
texlive-basicbin
What about texlive-bin-base?
As I said, it
[I've dropped some CCs...]
Norbert Preining wrote:
What about texlive-bin-base?
As I said, it is true that I can arbitrary hyphens, but there was a
decisison behind these names: Keeping the collections of TeX live (this
is what users see when they use the installer) and the debian packages
Rogério Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 28 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi Jörg, hi ftpmasters!
Hi, Norbert, Jörg and others.
Here is the opinion of a long time Debian luser (and DD wannabe), based
on the naming that I am already used to with other packages.
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And generally I wonder: Don't you generate most of the documentation
from dtx files, and many input files from the same dtx files? Then why
No, I use what is in the depot of perforce texlive.
Right answer to my wrongly phrased question. The right
Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no problem introducing different names, but only if I see good
reasons other than I like it or it is usual like this. To me, the
argument on name-sync collection-debiannames is strong enough to keep
the current names.
FWIW, Debian package names
Thomas Viehmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, Debian as a project has effectively standardized (by practice) on
the hyphenation that has been suggested all over the place in this
thread. Debian users will and should be able to expect a Debian-style
package naming.
Dismissing comments
Frank K.AN|ster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think that keeping the package names the same as the texlive
collection names would be a great benefit for the users.
Can you explain why it's important to keep the names _exactly_ the same?
Renaming them to completely random names might put off
Miles Bader [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For programs, some sort of correspondence with texlive names might be
useful, but that could be easily provide via other means (e.g. a mapping
file, or perhaps virtual packages like texlive-collection-FOO).
We already have a lot of real packages; no need
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:28, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
FWIW, Debian package names prefer e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over
foo-documentation-ukenglish. This allows to filter documentation
packages by name (doc-* or *-doc), and following the standardized
ISO abbreviations also seems to be better than using yet
On Nov 28 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
Rogério Brito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 28 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
texlive-binaries-source 96M
texlive-basicbin
What about texlive-bin-base?
I think that keeping the package names the same as the texlive
collection names
On Nov 28 2005, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Dismissing comments favoring this hyphenation - in unison - as
expressions of personal taste doesn't really reflect the fact that
consistency is a quality Debian users look for in packages.
Agreed. Debian users look for consistency in the same way that
Andrew Vaughan wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:28, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
FWIW, Debian package names prefer e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over
foo-documentation-ukenglish. This allows to filter documentation
packages by name (doc-* or *-doc), and following the standardized
ISO abbreviations also seems
Hi all!
(Taking out all the private email adr plus the other lists of the Cc and
continuing only on debian-devel)
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
I assume that people seeing/using texlive-in-debian are more likely to
be long-term Debian users rather than veteran texlive users, and will
Norbert Preining wrote:
[snip]
For the language stuff: Here is a problem as some languages packages are
not *one* single language, but several (arabic, cjk, other). So would it
be the best solution to have
old:texlive-langX
new:texlive--lang
?
Arabic is ar, IIRC.
Quoting Thiemo Seufer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Arabic is ar, IIRC. For groups of languages like cjk or indic it might
make sense to split the packages further, or, if that's not feasible,
use e.g. texlive-cjk-lang (but make sure the abbreviation is not ISO-style
two-character).
ISO-style can be
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How would the layout go for documentation packages. Ok, for a
documentation in language I take the XX code and generate
old:texlive-documentation-x
new:texlive-XX-doc
But what to do with the texlive-documentation-base,
Dear all!
I have reworked the whole packaging naming and would like all of you
again for comments:
I collect here the binary packages by source package, and list first the
old name, then the new name.
For doc and lang I give some reasoning.
Please comment, not only on the package naming, but
* Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] [051128 11:20]:
Dear all!
Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
bin-to-source mapping.
texlive-documentation-source 57M
Reasoning: The documenatation is actually in a specific language, so we
Marvin Renich wrote:
* Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] [051128 11:20]:
Dear all!
Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
bin-to-source mapping.
texlive-documentation-source57M
Reasoning: The documenatation is
On Monday 28 November 2005 19:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
If you know you are intersted in foo, then it is easy anyway
(apt-cache pkgnames instead of search for the purpose of this
discussion):
apt-cache pkgnames | grep '^foo.*-doc$'
If the idea is to remove some documentation from a
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:40, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
Andrew Vaughan wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:28, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
FWIW, Debian package names prefer e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over
foo-documentation-ukenglish.
Can you provide a reference/stats to back this up.
(on sarge)
$ apt-cache search
On 10487 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
I have reworked the whole packaging naming and would like all of you
again for comments:
WTH, what a thread. :) And its also *not* a flamewar. Is hell freezing? :)
Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
bin-to-source
Norbert Preining wrote:
texlive-binaries-source 96M
---
texlive-basicbin texlive-base-bin
texlive-binextra texlive-extrautils
I'd suggest texline-extra-utils here, because (at least to me) extra
and utils put together are hard to
Norbert Preining wrote:
allrunes dfsg
Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual allrunes files,
you see that it is LPPL.
I
How would the layout go for documentation packages. Ok, for a
documentation in language I take the XX code and generate
old:texlive-documentation-x
new:texlive-XX-doc
A bit of searching suggests the most common patterns are:
PKG-doc
PKG-doc-TYPE
Hi Jörg, hi ftpmasters!
(I take in debian-devel and debian-tetex-maint)
I want to add some comments and questions:
First, genesis of TeX live for Debian. This probably/hopefully answers
the big ? of you: Following the ITP #312897 there was quite a bit of
discussion on debian-devel on the topic
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
(I take in debian-devel and debian-tetex-maint)
For completeness I attach the complete email of Jörg.
Best wishes
Norbert
---
Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at
69 matches
Mail list logo
