Hilmar Preusse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So we should keep them in -core. I just checked whether we
distribute any gf files, and since this is not the case, it seemed
not necessary to me. But we should keep in mind that add-on font
packages might have .gf files.
Metafont creates gf files,
On 27.10.05 Frank Küster ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
/usr/bin/pktogf (convert packed font files to generic font files)
/usr/bin/gftopk (and back)
This is used by mktexpk!
So we should keep them in -core. I just checked whether we
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it really necessary to reduce the package as much as necessary for
the buildds? Wouldn't a more useful goal for a larger number of users
be to break the package into a core package, which is the common
stuff (somewhat arbitrarily defined), which
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:37:47AM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it really necessary to reduce the package as much as necessary for
the buildds? Wouldn't a more useful goal for a larger number of users
be to break the package into a core package,
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed up to here.
/usr/bin/tangle
/usr/bin/tie
/usr/bin/ctangle
/usr/bin/weave
/usr/bin/ctie
/usr/bin/cweave (CWEB stuff)
Hmmm. These are small binaries with very little in the way of
dependencies. Could probably lose them to tetex-bin-extra
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 15:56 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
mpost,
mpto,
makempx
/usr/bin/makempy (MetaPost)
/usr/bin/mptopdf
I would suggest that MetaPost is now regarded as a core component of a
modern TeX distribution, so I'd suggest keeping it in the core.
Hm, well.
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. guidelines for splitting
[...]
3. Some possible splitting schemes
===
I have now set up a project homepage on alioth
http://pkg-tetex.alioth.debian.org/
with only one topic, splitting.
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 15:56 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
mpost,
mpto,
makempx
/usr/bin/makempy (MetaPost)
/usr/bin/mptopdf
I would suggest that MetaPost is now regarded as a core component of a
modern TeX distribution, so I'd
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. guidelines for splitting
[...]
3. Some possible splitting schemes
===
I have now set up a project homepage on alioth
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 03:56:21PM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm. These are small binaries with very little in the way of
dependencies. Could probably lose them to tetex-bin-extra or
tetex-bin-litprog, though.
That was all I was talking about:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 02:56:29PM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
Here are some more suggestions for the opt-out list, including what
you already provided:
omega,
aleph,
omfonts,
odvicopy,
odvitype,
otangle,
otp2ocp,
outocp (Omega)
/usr/bin/opl2ofm
/usr/bin/ovf2ovp
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dvipdfm ebb (unsure about those)
I don't think we need them in tetex-bin-core or however it's going to be
called. I don't think that dvipdfm is used to create pdf in any
automated system. We can always put it back if somebody complains.
Or rather, as
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 16:28 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
- PSNFSS fonts, the CM and EC fonts in Metafont and Type1 format, if
available.
To what extend do we want internationlization? Should people be able to
produce documentation in Russian, Greek
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 16:28 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
I expect that teTeX will continue to be the standard package for
creating documentation when building a Debian package, and I think that
we should try to develop our splitting schemes mainly along
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 19:51 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Do you think it should be possible to have combinations like
tetex-bin, tetex-base plus ConTeXt from texlive?
Would be nice, but not strictly necessary.
Or do you think that
someone will want tetex-extra on top of some parts of
Dear all,
there are a lot of requests for a more clever splitting of tetex-base,
-bin, and -extra in the BTS. Now that we are early in the release cycle
of etch, and teTeX-3.0 is finally in unstable, I want to approach the
question of splitting.
This mail goes to all the bugs that refer to
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 04:28:25PM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
3.1 tetex-bin
* minimal scheme
^^
tetex-bin is split into tetex-bin-nox and tetex-bin-x11; tetex-bin
continues to exist as a dummy package. Besides sorting files with dh_*
and writing the necessary control
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 04:28:25PM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
3.1 tetex-bin
* minimal scheme
^^
tetex-bin is split into tetex-bin-nox and tetex-bin-x11; tetex-bin
continues to exist as a dummy package. Besides sorting files with dh_*
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 16:28 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
regarding tetex-bin
a) #78926: If possible, it'd be nice if dvips were a seperate package,
so that users of printfilters, e.g., don't need tetex-bin installed.
[is this really a realistic scenario? How many systems are there
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 17:27 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 04:28:25PM +0200, Frank K??ster wrote:
* advanced scheme
^^^
Additionally, tetex-bin-nox is split into tetex-bin-mini and
tetex-bin-extra (or
Some additions
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 20:40 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote:
tetex-bin-extra:
omega, aleph, omfonts, odvicopy, odvitype, otangle, otp2ocp, outocp (Omega)
mkocp (Omega)
mpost, mpto, makempx (MetaPost)
dmp dvitomp (MetaPost)
texexec (ConTeXt)
pltotf, tftopl, vftovp, vptovf
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 20:28 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 16:28 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
- PSNFSS fonts, the CM and EC fonts in Metafont and Type1 format, if
available.
To what extend do we want internationlization? Should people be able to
produce documentation
22 matches
Mail list logo
