I am not a TeX packaging expert, but from what I heard on the Debian side, the changes in Debian packaging of texlive are for the following reasons:
1. Make sure that texlive and tetex can co-exist. This mean that any extra TeX packages can use either tetex or texlive as their base. 2. Remove duplication. There are many components in texlive are already pacakged in Debian, such as language support, fonts, etc. The texlive package in debian doesn't build them, but depends on the corresponding package instead. 3. I believe there are also a few FHS/LSB and Debian policy issues about where certain kind of files should be put into. And maybe other reasons (these are from top of my head). If anybody is interested, he/she should read the discussion on debian-tetex-maint mailing list about this topic. As for this bug - Henk, I wonder if you are one of the authors of the TUG TeXlive distribution. If you aren't, I suppose the answer is simply "If you like the TUG TeXlive better, use that and don't bother with the ubuntu packages. But some users prefer them packaged this way". If you are one of the authors, I suggest you talk about your concerns with the Debian texlive maintainers. -- What is added value of texlive packages vis-à-vis TeXLiveCD from TUG? https://launchpad.net/bugs/67441 -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
