[Frank Küster] > > Why do we need two packages containing the "latex" command, for example? > > Why do we need N packages that provide MTA functionality?
That's not equivalent. An equivalent question would be more like "why do we need N packages all containing the source code for exim and building a binary called /usr/sbin/exim?" What I mean is, AFAICT, if you get past the packaging, tetex and texlive are the *same* source code and the *same* data - not just two different implementations of a similar interface. So I would dearly hope that eventually tetex would evolve into little more than a set of metapackages that suck in stuff from texlive. Or do the existing tetex packages actually provide anything that could not be provided that way? (Yes, I realise 'tetex' would be a misnomer at that point.) I'm in favor of texlive being included in debian unstable (assuming license issues can be worked out), but I am not particularly in favor of having texlive and tetex coexist indefinitely. tetex is heavy enough that it should have to justify its continued existence (I mean as more than just a way to "get all useful bits of TeX by listing just one package dependency") if texlive provides the same thing.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
