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-langXXXXX > new: texlive-XXXX-lang > ?
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). > 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. Probably texlive-extra and texlive-fontutils then? In any case, there's not much need to search for executables only packages. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
