On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:09:45PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > Hi Stefano! > > On Fre, 04 Aug 2006, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > I don't think "polluting" all packages that need tetex-whatever with > > alternative dependencies on texlive-whatever is a good idea. It would be > > much better to make both tetex-whatever and texlive-whatever Provides a > > virtual package like latex-whatever and then ask all interested packages > > to use a dependencies on the virtual package. > > > > This way we would at least have to do the work once, what if tomorrow we > > will add in debian another latex implementation? Should we go through > > all the involved packages again? > > Not completely wrong, but unrealistic. You might reconsider your > decision in the light of the following points: > - tetex is not actively maintained any more (upstream, not debian) > - texlive is actively maintained and has regular release cycles every > year > - for sure not etch, but etch+1 will (?) have texlive as default tex > system > - there is no other TeX implementation around one would want to package > for Debian. > > We, the TeX for Debian maintainers (that is all those working on teTeX, > TeX live and related packages), have catered for this, and currently the > two systems coexist, and in fact cooperate to a certain level (you can > use texlive packages with tetex). > > But rest assured, the X minutes you would invest in adding the > additional dependency will not have to be done again and again > (considering that the initial packaging texlive was a task of 1 year, I > assume not many will come forth and package a currently non-existent TeX > distribution). > > Anyway, it is a wishlist bug. You can ignore it, or raise it yourself to > debian-devel. But one think is sure: the introduction of a virtual > package *WILL NOT WORK*, because what should the virtual package > provide: a basic latex system only with the required components of a > latex system (that are not a lot)? Or a specific subset of packages? > This doesn't work, you, the one depending on tex implementations, have > to say *what* you need, and choose the respective packages.
Is texlive a full replacement of tetex ? If so, would having texlive provide a Provide: tetex-base or whatever not have been the way to go an the easiest solution, instead of bothering a huge amount of maintainer with the change ? And you can easily say that the latex-base package will have to provide the subset of packages defined in the latex policy, and everyone should be happy. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
