Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That would be acceptable. Another solution would be to have the > texlive source package build dvidvi into a separate binary package, > and to request removal of the dvidvi source package. What I'm > actually trying to do here is to sneakily shift responsibility for > dvidvi from me into the Debian TeX maintainers' lap. But if you don't > want that, OK, fine, I can continue with the dvidvi package as I did > before.
I cannot say a Yes here, since Norbert is still the primary maintainer of TeXLive (and he's in the mountains this week). But generally our approach is: If there's an active maintainer, keep it maintained separately; otherwise integrate it and get rid of the old package. Up to now we didn't create tiny binary packages, however. Instead, the larger texlive collection package Conflicts/Provides/Replaces the old separate binary package. We generally decided not to create a binary package from each CTAN piece, but base them on the TeXLive collections. (Otherwise we'd have hundreds of packages). So if we integrate a former separate package, its name disappeared. > Does the dvidvi from texlive contain the same patches (and hence > really the same functionality) than the one in the dvidvi package, or > maybe even better ones? They might be better ones. There's a patchfile in the upstream sources: http://tug.org/svn/texlive/trunk/Build/source/texk/dvidvi/dvidvi.kohm-patch?revision=1485&view=markup > I took a cursory glance, it seems they both contain unique features: > > - the one in texlive bears version number 1.1, as opposed to 1.0, and > accepts command line switches -j and -p. > > - the one in texlive seems not to contain the patches in dvidvi, in > particular not the patch for the section of the manpage and not > Benjamin Bayart's patches, or not all of them. > > - texlive seems to be missing a Unix version of a5booklet > > How about merging them, pushing the changes in dvidvi to upstream > (that is texlive) and building a dvidvi binary package from texlive? That sounds like a good idea, except that I'm not convince we want a separate package. I don't have much time to look at these patches; would you be willing to contact the texlive mailing list? Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
