On Mon, 29 May 2006, [iso-8859-1] Frank Küster wrote: > It's not clear to me what you want to achieve with that tetexrpm > project. If teTeX were still actively developed, I understand it might > make sense to keep packages for rpm-based distributions as compatible as > possible, and maintain them at a central place. But now that it's been > abandoned, I don't see the benefit of this. > > Either someone steps up and takes the task of maintaining teTeX; but > then the rpm creation is the smaller part. The real work would be to > keep the texmf tree up-to-date, and to take care for the source tree. > This shouldn't be done with rpm packages as the main target (nor deb's, > for that matter), but with a standard "./configure; make; make install" > as it is currently. > > Furthermore, I think the best thing we got from Thomas is the > infrastructure, which has been merged into TeXlive and is still > maintained by him there. Work on selecting and updating CTAN packages, > and in creating useful collections, is probably better done within > TeXlive, or by making the MikTeX installer work with a preinstalled TeX > system. > I agree. Having rpm's is good just for a group of Redhat based systems. It seems to me that having such a distribution as an alternative to TeXLive is just a waste of human resources. I think that it would be better to communicate with maintainers of Linux distributions and add TL to Linux installation DVD instead of teTeX.
> Regards, Frank > -- > Frank Küster > Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. > Zürich > Debian Developer (teTeX) > _______________________________________________ > TeX Live mailing list > http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-live > Zdenek Wagner e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] see also http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/ http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz