Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How would the layout go for documentation packages. Ok, for a > documentation in language xxxx I take the XX code and generate > old: texlive-documentation-xxxxx > new: texlive-XX-doc > But what to do with the texlive-documentation-base, should it become > old: texlive-documenatation-base > new: texlive-base-doc > ?
I would say, yes, texlive-base-doc, because it is the doc package for texlive-base (or probably for the arch: all and arch: any packages with base in their name). It is not so much the basis of all texlive documentation. > 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-langXXXXX > new: texlive-XXXX-lang > ? Here, I would take descriptive names - you wouldn't want to change the package name if cjk starts supporting an additional language. But as for arabic, isn't that *one* language? I'm not familiar with language vs. country codes, but I found a list of ISO 639 2- and 3-letter lanugage codes, where 'AR' or 'ara' stands for arabic. And the two-letter list is missing some languages with TeX support, e.g. Sorbian (wen). > Otherwise, according to your comments, I would suggest > texlive-base-bin > texlive-extra-bin > texlive-font-bin Why not texlive-bin-* in this case, if it fits better to the content? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
