Hi Karl, On 5/11/07, Karl Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,Karl: would that be an option? Official source tarballs would make other distributor's life much more easy. As Edd said, the sources themselves are already a tarball. I guess I could put up tarballs of the texmf trees, but what's the difference between having an iso and having tarballs? Exactly the same files.
Although the sources are a tarball, you need to add a version number to them to make them useful to automated systems like our ports tree. Eg. Many people use really old BSD systems because they cannot afford to upgrade (in business costs). If their ports tree downloads source.tar.bz2 thinking it is texlive 2001 when it is really the 2007 sources (same filename), then we have a problem. Perhaps rename source.tar.bz2 to texlive_source-2007.tar.bz2 and archive the older versions in the same directory? Also the texmf tree on the DVD has much duplicated files that the source code will install anyway. You have done this so that it may run from DVD, which I completely respect, but for us this is not optimal. A vanilla texmf would be far more useful. Does anyone agree with me? Please don't take my opinion in the wrong manner, because I really appreciate your work. -- Best Regards Edd --------------------------------------------------- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett/
