Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > So, I propose the following compromise: > > > > * Downgrade xfree86-common and xlib6g from standard to optional; AND > > * Modify section 5.8 to say that creating X and non-X versions of a > > package is permissible *ONLY* if the non-X version qualifies for > > standard priority. The X-dependent component can have optional or > > extra priority.
On Fri, Dec 03, 1999 at 12:08:07PM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote: > I think this is a good idea (as long as not too many extra packages > pop up because of this.) I can see some merit to this, but I think the issue is that the X version fails to provide all the functionality of the non-X version. [This is the case for vim, if I recall correctly. Are there any other examples where we have x and non-x versions?] > > On a completely different subject, I'm not so sure that TeX and LaTeX > > should really be standard. [reasons snipped] LaTex, I agree. TeX, maybe -- I'd like to see your reasons. -- Raul
