Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > teTeX and TeXLive have very different target groups. teTeX targets > simple configure/make/make install Unix setups. TeXLive is a > ready-to-run media with the ability to copy over unix/windows/mac > binaries to your hard disk or run them from the DVD.
That is a difference in packaging only. The binaries on the TeX Live discs are build like this. Hence it shouldn't be a big problem to offer a 'tetex-src' tarball based on the TeX Live sources. The larger difference is wrt to the TEXMF tree. And IMHO this is also the crucial point where decisions for any 'teTeX successor' have to be made. I don't think that continuing with a large monolitic TEXMF tree is a good idea. I see two interesting possiblities: * Go over to the TeX Live team and help them. Add something like the 'tetex-src' tarball as a regular form of distributing the programs in TeX Live. Define a subset of the TeX Live TEXMF tree to get something like a 'tetex-texmf' tarball. Add RPMs etc for different Linux distributions. * Use sources from TeX Live but start a new TEXMF tree. This tree would be *minimal* but would have the advantage that each and every file in it has been license audited. Of course, this tree should use something like the TPM file mechanism from TeX Live to define which files belong together. Since the TEXMF tree offers only the bare minimum, something like the MikTeX package manager mpm would be needed to install additional packages. cheerio ralf
