Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 04:28:25PM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote: > >> 3.1 tetex-bin >> >> * minimal scheme >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> tetex-bin is split into tetex-bin-nox and tetex-bin-x11; tetex-bin >> continues to exist as a dummy package. Besides sorting files with dh_* >> and writing the necessary control information, the only thing we have to >> do is connected to mf: we probably need to set up an alternatives system >> for mf-nowin and mfw. >> >> * advanced scheme >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> Additionally, tetex-bin-nox is split into tetex-bin-mini and >> tetex-bin-extra (or similar), where tetex-bin-mini contains only >> pdfetex, mf-nowin and dvips plus the needed scripts/binaries smaller >> than 100K. This would require more work, because finding out which >> small programs are needed isn't trivial. > > I agree with this in principle, but not using a size criterion. > Rather, those binaries which depend on something in tetex-extra (eg > aleph, omega, whatever we put there) should move to tetex-bin-extra > and those which don't can stay in tetex-bin.
That was also my intention. I used the size just as an additional reason to split like this; but the main point is that in order to produce DVI or PDF from LaTeX sources, you only need pdfetex, mf-nowin and dvips (plus all the helper scripts). > Also, would > tetex-bin-core be a better name? The names are probably something we need to think and talk about. But mini is a bad choice, it was just to illustrate the idea. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
