Subject: Re: teTeX 3.0 packages imported
To: Antoine Reilles <Antoine.Reilles@loria.fr>
From: Hubert Feyrer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/06/2005 13:28:41
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005, Antoine Reilles wrote:
> Why keep the old share/texmf (from teTeX2), when teTeX3 features a splitted texmf.
Why not? Right now, the teTeX3* pkgs are modeled after the teTeX
distribution, which comes as three files. I have only renamed the pkg
names to really match the teTeX distribution (i.e. teTeX3-texmf was
formerly (well, is - for teTeX 2) named teTeX-share.
> The idea to split texmf in :
> share/texmf for teTeX-bin files
> share/texmf-dist for teTeX-texmf
> shate/texmf-local for additional packages seems more flexible than the previous
> one, particularly for texmf-local, which could be used for installing
> additional packages without messing out with the main tetex distribution.
> This could even allow to package newer versions of packages which are included
> in tetex2 texmf tree (i'm thinking of latex-beamer).
> We could also have a variable like LOCALTEXMF to help packages providing files
> for texmf to install in the right place, instead of hardcoding it.
I guess that one can split up packages differently, but this means a lot
of (local) maintenance effort, i.e. time. When need arises and esp. if
someone maintains this it can sure be done, but for a first start I don't
see immediate need for action. YMMV.
I've tested only ~50% of the pkgs that needs TeX as dependency in pkgsrc
so far, and don't know when to look at the rest, but from the problems
I've seen so far, noone can be solved by splitting things differently.
NetBSD - Free AND Open! (And of course secure, portable, yadda yadda)