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 me like what people are saying is: "Yeah it would be great >> and desirable to have no duplication between tetex and texlive, and we're >> going to try to do that -- but it's _a lot of work_, and we'd like to >> approach that ideal in stages." >> >> That sounds pretty reasonable to me. > > It sounds to me more like they are trying to keep both texlive and tetex > in the archive, even in the long term. And *that* doesn't look > reasonable.
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. Personally, I assume there will be reasons to keep teTeX; whether they are strong enough compared to the archive bloat (and the dispersal of mantainer power) in the long run, that remains to be seen. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer