On 29.11.05 Anthony DeRobertis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi,
> >>allrunes dfsg
> >>
> >>Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license
> >>there.
> >
> >
> > As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the
> > TeX Catalogue, whic
Le jeudi 01 décembre 2005 à 11:56 +0100, Frank Küster a écrit :
> 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.
In this case, I have to agree with you.
> Personally, I
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!
>>
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 i
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > [Frank Küster]
>> >> > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example?
>
>> >> Why do we need N packages that prov
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 tet
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:51:34AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Frank Küster]
> >> > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example?
> >> Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
> > That's not equivalent.
Peter Samuelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Frank Küster]
>> > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example?
>>
>> Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
>
> That's not equivalent. An equivalent question would be more like "why
> do we need N packa
[Frank Küster]
> > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example?
>
> Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
That's not equivalent. An equivalent question would be more like "why
do we need N packages all containing the source code for exim and
build
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mardi 29 novembre 2005 à 22:48 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
>> There is a lot of duplication in Debian, and up to now nobody has
>> complaint. We are working on taking out and packagin *big* stuff (like
>> font packages: lmodern, cm-super) so t
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10488 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>allrunes dfsg
>Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
Catalogue, which *can be wrong*!
Le mardi 29 novembre 2005 à 22:48 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> > When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
>
> Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
> else in Debian and completely unable to be handled.
TeX is big, I'd expect packages to be big. H
Hi Jörg!
On Mit, 30 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> >> > There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
> >> > software.
> >> When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
> > Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
> > else in Debian
On 10488 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> > There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
>> > software.
>> When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
> Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
> else in Debian and completely
Hi Josselin!
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
> > software.
>
> When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
Even if I take five packages each of it will be bigger than anything
else in Debian and c
Le mardi 29 novembre 2005 à 22:16 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> Please read the thread following the ITP. If you want teTeX, install it.
> There is no way that we can make one binary package for close to 1Gb of
> software.
When did I ask you to make one single binary package?
> The granula
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > one source package, that would be easiest for me. Then we would have the
> > TeX live iso image, add a debian subdir and build everything. But then
> > again, who want's to upload 700M all the time.
>
> No, not one single thing. Brrr.
Guess so. Would
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I'd go further, by asking why there must be so many binary packages. Of
> course, granularity is good, but too much granularity only means
> confusion. When I install a TeX system, I want a working environment
> without wondering if I need to install t
Le lundi 28 novembre 2005 à 08:07 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> > Im also not really happy with the current packaging, starting with the too
> > heavy split of (source) packages.
>
> Ok, this can be dealt with. I thought it would be better to have a
> strict relation between source and bin p
On 10488 March 1977, Frank Küster wrote:
allrunes dfsg
Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
>>> As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
>>> Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual allrunes files,
>>> you s
Norbert Preining wrote:
> To my reading that thread didn't end in a conclusion that it is not
> acceptable.
>
> Furthermore, IMHO, if it would be *not* acceptable, then we would
> have to remove all, I repeat *ALL* LPPL licensed packages.
>
> I guess this is something we don't want to have in
On 10488 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> Hey, that looks ways better than the initial upload. Good work. :)
>> And with 5 sources left its also much less then what I suggested.
> Thanks. I always try to incorporate suggestions. I could even go down to
> one source package, that would be eas
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:
> Hmm... in that case, I should mention my experience with XyMTeX, an
> organic chemistry LaTeX package included in TeX Live. Anyone else who
> wants to comment on non-DFSG-free components of TeX Live may as well
> follow up to this email.
>
> See Debi
Norbert Preining wrote:
> And if you take a look at the texlive ml at tug.org, I can assure you
> that Karl Berry is very eager in dropping everything from TeX live which
> has the slightest problem with being DFSG free.
Hmm... in that case, I should mention my experience with XyMTeX, an
organic
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:01:25 +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > First of all, let me cast my vote for -doc-XX rather than -XX-doc. It
>
> Already implemented.
>
> > [Norbert Preining]
> > > texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
> >
> > Cz
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> First of all, let me cast my vote for -doc-XX rather than -XX-doc. It
Already implemented.
> [Norbert Preining]
> > texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
>
> Czech and Slovak are two different languages, 'cs' and 'sk'. You
> should check
First of all, let me cast my vote for -doc-XX rather than -XX-doc. It
makes much more sense from a sorted package names point of view, which,
as others have said, is important in package manager UIs.
[Norbert Preining]
> texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc
Czech and Slovak are two
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Norbert Preining wrote:
>
>>>allrunes dfsg
>>>
>>>Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
>>
>>
>> As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
>> Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you c
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No please. That would make confusion. Half of the packages named in one
> way, half of them named the other way.
> One thing please, either iso codes or longnames, not both.
I think that's wrong -- there are very few exceptions, and those are
_exceptions
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > I agree "-lang-" is probably better than locale/l10n/i18n for the reason
> > you state.
>
> One thing please, either iso codes or longnames, not both.
longnames, as I said. lang-
for exactely this reason, not wanting to have different standards.
Best
Miles Bader schrieb:
> I agree "-lang-" is probably better than locale/l10n/i18n for the reason
> you state.
> However, why not use the official language codes where available (keeping
> the "longname" where there is no code)? They mean exactly what you want,
> and are widely used in debian packa
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Existing usage seems a bit mixed; the main common point seems to be
>> "-LANG" as a suffix. Some patterns are:
>>
>>PKG-LANG
>>PKG-locale-LANG (this seems the most common)
>>PKG-l10n-LANG(openoffice uses this
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > texlive-binaries-source 96M
> > ---
> > texlive-basicbintexlive-base-bin
> > texlive-binextratexlive-extrautils
>
> I'd suggest texline-extra-utils here, because (at least to me) "extra"
ok.
Hi Jörg!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
> > bin-to-source mapping.
>
> Hey, that looks ways better than the initial upload. Good work. :)
> And with 5 sources left its also much less then what I suggested.
Thanks. I a
Hi Miles!
On Die, 29 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
>PKG-doc
>PKG-doc-LANG (LANG is usually code like "fr")
>
> Not sure, but I guess either just "texlive-doc" or "texlive-doc-base".
Done, texlive-doc-XX
> > For the language stuff: Here is a problem as some languages packa
> How would the layout go for documentation packages. Ok, for a
> documentation in language I take the XX code and generate
> old:texlive-documentation-x
> new:texlive-XX-doc
A bit of searching suggests the most common patterns are:
PKG-doc
PKG-doc-TYPE
Norbert Preining wrote:
>>allrunes dfsg
>>
>>Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there.
>
>
> As stated in the License file, this list was generated from the TeX
> Catalogue, which *can be wrong*! If you check the actual allrunes files,
> you see that it is LPPL
Norbert Preining wrote:
>
> texlive-binaries-source 96M
> ---
> texlive-basicbin texlive-base-bin
> texlive-binextra texlive-extrautils
I'd suggest texline-extra-utils here, because (at least to me) "extra"
and "utils" put together are
On 10487 March 1977, Norbert Preining wrote:
> I have reworked the whole packaging naming and would like all of you
> again for comments:
WTH, what a thread. :) And its also *not* a flamewar. Is hell freezing? :)
> Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
> bin-to-source m
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:40, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:28, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > > FWIW, Debian package names prefer e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over
> > > foo-documentation-ukenglish.
Can you provide a reference/stats to back this up.
(on sarge)
$ apt-cach
On Monday 28 November 2005 19:36, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> If you know you are intersted in "foo", then it is easy anyway
> (apt-cache pkgnames instead of search for the purpose of this
> discussion):
>
> apt-cache pkgnames | grep '^foo.*-doc$'
>
> If the idea is to remove some documentation from a s
Marvin Renich wrote:
> * Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051128 11:20]:
> > Dear all!
> >
> > Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
> > bin-to-source mapping.
> >
> >
> > texlive-documentation-source57M
> >
> > Reasoning: The d
* Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051128 11:20]:
> Dear all!
>
> Please comment, not only on the package naming, but also on the
> bin-to-source mapping.
>
>
> texlive-documentation-source 57M
>
> Reasoning: The documenatation is actually in a specific languag
Dear all!
I have reworked the whole packaging naming and would like all of you
again for comments:
I collect here the binary packages by source package, and list first the
old name, then the new name.
For doc and lang I give some reasoning.
Please comment, not only on the package naming, but al
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How would the layout go for documentation packages. Ok, for a
> documentation in language I take the XX code and generate
> old:texlive-documentation-x
> new:texlive-XX-doc
> But what to do with the texlive-documentation-ba
Quoting Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Arabic is "ar", IIRC. For groups of languages like cjk or indic it might
> make sense to split the packages further, or, if that's not feasible,
> use e.g. texlive-cjk-lang (but make sure the abbreviation is not ISO-style
> two-character).
ISO-style can
Norbert Preining wrote:
[snip]
> For the language stuff: Here is a problem as some languages packages are
> not *one* single language, but several (arabic, cjk, other). So would it
> be the best solution to have
> old:texlive-langX
> new:texlive--lang
> ?
Arabic is "ar"
Hi all!
(Taking out all the private email adr plus the other lists of the Cc and
continuing only on debian-devel)
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
> I assume that people seeing/using texlive-in-debian are more likely to
> be long-term Debian users rather than veteran texlive users, and wil
Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:28, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >
> > FWIW, Debian package names prefer e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over
> > foo-documentation-ukenglish. This allows to filter documentation
> > packages by name (doc-* or *-doc), and following the standardized
> > ISO abbreviations
On Nov 28 2005, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Dismissing comments favoring this hyphenation - in unison - as
> expressions of personal taste doesn't really reflect the fact that
> consistency is a quality Debian users look for in packages.
Agreed. Debian users look for consistency in the same way that
On Nov 28 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 28 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > > texlive-binaries-source 96M
> > > texlive-basicbin
> > What about texlive-bin-base?
>
> I think that keeping the package names the same as the texlive
> c
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:28, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> FWIW, Debian package names prefer e.g. foo-en-uk-doc over
> foo-documentation-ukenglish. This allows to filter documentation
> packages by name (doc-* or *-doc), and following the standardized
> ISO abbreviations also seems to be better than using
Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For programs, some sort of correspondence with texlive names might be
> useful, but that could be easily provide via other means (e.g. a mapping
> file, or perhaps virtual packages like "texlive-collection-FOO").
We already have a lot of real packages; no
Frank K.AN|ster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think that keeping the package names the same as the texlive
> collection names would be a great benefit for the users.
Can you explain why it's important to keep the names _exactly_ the same?
Renaming them to completely random names might put o
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, Debian as a project has effectively standardized (by practice) on
> the hyphenation that has been suggested all over the place in this
> thread. Debian users will and should be able to expect a Debian-style
> package naming.
> Dismissing comments
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I have no problem introducing different names, but only if I see good
>> reasons other than "I like it" or "it is usual like this". To me, the
>> argument on name-sync collection-debiannames is strong enough to keep
>> the current names.
>
> FWIW, Debian
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And generally I wonder: Don't you generate most of the documentation
>> from dtx files, and many input files from the same dtx files? Then why
>
> No, I use what is in the depot of perforce texlive.
Right answer to my wrongly phrased question. The
Rogério Brito <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 28 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> Hi Jörg, hi ftpmasters!
>
> Hi, Norbert, Jörg and others.
>
> Here is the opinion of a long time Debian luser (and DD wannabe), based
> on the naming that I am already used to with other packages.
>
>> texlive-bi
[I've dropped some CCs...]
Norbert Preining wrote:
>>What about texlive-bin-base?
> As I said, it is true that I can arbitrary hyphens, but there was a
> decisison behind these names: Keeping the collections of TeX live (this
> is what users see when they use the installer) and the debian package
Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
> > nicely as "texlive-lang-tibetan" and "texlive-fonts-recommended".
>
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Rogério Brito wrote:
> > > texlive-binaries-source 96M
> > > texlive-basicbin
> > What about texlive-bin-base?
>
Hi Frank!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
> > texlive-languages-source37M
> > texlive-base-source 78M
> > texlive-extra-source172M
>
> Whether this is a good idea depends on a decision that, IIRC, we have
> not yet talked about: Will you only provide packages
Hi all!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Miles Bader wrote:
> nicely as "texlive-lang-tibetan" and "texlive-fonts-recommended".
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Rogério Brito wrote:
> > texlive-binaries-source 96M
> > texlive-basicbin
> What about texlive-bin-base?
As I said, it is true that I can arbi
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Son, 27 Nov 2005, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> Looking at the texlive packages in NEW I have some comments for you,
I can only support was Norbert has said here, no need to repeat it.
Maybe two more things:
The process of preparing Debian for having
On Nov 28 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Jörg, hi ftpmasters!
Hi, Norbert, Jörg and others.
Here is the opinion of a long time Debian luser (and DD wannabe), based
on the naming that I am already used to with other packages.
> texlive-binaries-source 96M
> texlive-basicbi
BTW I think you need a few more hyphens in your package names -- stuff
like "texlive-langtibetan" and "texlive-fontsrecommended" read much
nicely as "texlive-lang-tibetan" and "texlive-fonts-recommended".
-miles
--
`There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your p
Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you thing about this scheme:
> (source package with size of the .orig.tar.gz, plus included binary
> packages)
> Would this be an acceptable solution for you?
>
[...]
> texlive-documentation-source 57M
> texlive-documentation-base
Hi Jörg, hi ftpmasters!
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > binary. Better merge them into one texlive-source and build the
> > different binary packages out of that one. You are left with 47 sources..
> >
> > Similar things can be said for the language packs, merge the *27* to one
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Norbert Preining wrote:
> (I take in debian-devel and debian-tetex-maint)
For completeness I attach the complete email of Jörg.
Best wishes
Norbert
---
Dr. Norbert Preining Università d
Hi Jörg, hi ftpmasters!
(I take in debian-devel and debian-tetex-maint)
I want to add some comments and questions:
First, genesis of TeX live for Debian. This probably/hopefully answers
"the big ?" of you: Following the ITP #312897 there was quite a bit of
discussion on debian-devel on the topic
69 matches
Mail list logo
