Nicholas Wourms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> @tetex-beta >> > ^^^^^^^^^^ > I assume this is supposed to be @tetex-base?
No, the current package is tetex-beta. I propose to do a new, dummy release that depends on the new tetex-bin. > Sounds good to me [though you might considier using the proper naming > i.e. teTeX-bin TeXmf-base ] but I'll let others comment on how to make > this transition smooth. Package names should be lower case, if you ask me. One of the things that Debian got right. > Can we have Xdvi (included in tetex) now that X11 is part of Cygwin? Of course. Note however, that xdvi proper is not included in tetex. Tetex comes with a patched version for kpathsea, xdvik, which is a lot less well supported than xdvi itself. > In fact, you might want to partition the X11 parts into > 'teTeX-X11-bin'. I wanted to leave this issue for a while. I'm not sure what's the best way, but I certainly don't want to have some tetex package (eg tetex-bin) depend on xfree (like the braindead debian package). If you ask me, it would maybe not too bad to put xdvi and mfw in tetex-bin; and have people figure out for themselves that they need xfree to run those two. How hard can that be? People might expect xdvi to come with tetex, after all. I don't care too much, the list (or the bugreports after) may decide, if it has a good opinion. > Thanks for offering to take over Jan, perhaps you will then want to > add lillypond to the official distribution, that way you'd no longer > be required to maintain a fork distro... Yes, that would be nice. Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
