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 will
> benefit both from more readable package names, and (as you say) from
> consistency with other debian packages. Note that there is a definite
> benefit to this sort of consistency -- I often do operations in aptitude
> by matching on package prefixes/suffix, e.g. everything matching "-doc"
> (or whatever).
Ok, accepted. Let's go on and try to settle this:
How would the layout go for documentation packages. Ok, for a
documentation in language xxxx I take the XX code and generate
old: texlive-documentation-xxxxx
new: texlive-XX-doc
But what to do with the texlive-documentation-base, should it become
old: texlive-documenatation-base
new: texlive-base-doc
?
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-langXXXXX
new: texlive-XXXX-lang
?
Finally a question concerning the package build from binaries-source:
texlive-binaries-source 96M
texlive-basicbin texlive-binextra texlive-fontbin texlive-htmlxml
texlive-metapost texlive-omega texlive-pdfetex texlive-psutils
texlive-ttfutils texlive-music texlive-langindic texlive-graphicstools
texlive-langcjk
Renaming some of them in the `obvious' way is in fact misleading: Take
eg
old: texlive-binextra
and rename it to
new: texlive-extra-bin
Then most Debian users would expect a package "texlive-extra" and this
one would provide only the binaries.
But in binextra there are not the binaries for some extra package, there
are just extra binaries including the necessary support files, so
complete packages.
To stress this fact: texlive-fontbin, texlive-binextra should be renamed
to have decent names, but they are in some sense self contained packages
containing binaries and the necessary support files, they are not of the
usual -bin type packages in Debian, ie splitting out binaries from one
package to have only small arch dep packages and one big arch indep
package.
If this changes anything in your idea on how the packages should be
named, tell me, I am open to this.
Otherwise, according to your comments, I would suggest
texlive-base-bin
texlive-extra-bin
texlive-font-bin
texlive-htmlxml
texlive-metapost
texlive-omega
texlive-pdfetex
texlive-psutils
texlive-ttfutils
texlive-music
texlive-indic-lang
texlive-graphicstools
texlive-cjk-lang
Would this be an acceptable naming scheme for all present? Also
ftpmasters?
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining AT logic DOT at> Università di Siena
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUTH (n.)
The sort of man who wears loud check jackets, has a personalised
tankard behind the bar and always gets served before you do.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
