[tex-live] Re: debian packages ready
dak at gnu.org
Tue Jul 19 16:31:40 CEST 2005
Norbert Preining <preining at logic.at> writes:
> Hi Frank, hi all!
> On Die, 19 Jul 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
>> > It does not seem like a good idea to leave out the preview styles from
>> > TeXlive just on the hunch that the operating system might also provide
>> > preview-latex in an unnecessarily conflicting manner.
>> I don't think we were talking about leaving them out from TeXlive
>> proper, but from the Debian package texlive-latexextra. We can still do
> True, completely.
>> (preview-latex and texlive-"ps4pdf") depend on "preview-latex-style |
>> texlive-previewlatex" and add the required versions when necessary.
> Well there is no texlive-previewlatex (If we would go down to this level
> we would have several hundreds of debian packages, and we decided not to
> do this).
> I have taken out preview-latex of the texlive-latexextra package (not of
> course out of TeX live proper).
> Fortunately the debian package preview-latex-style does NOT depend on
> tetex specifically, so you can install it also into texlive.
> The texlive-latexextra suggests preview-latex-style
It can't just suggest it if ps4pdf depends on it. _IF_ Debian will
follow the suggested package layout in AUCTeX's INSTALL file (and the
only way to find out is to ask the Debian maintainers), then you
should alternatively depend on preview-tetex, which is a saner name.
However, preview-tetex would be installed in the teTeX tree, so I
don't quite see how it can substitute for TeXlive. Or is TeXlive
supposed to not be installed in parallel with teTeX?
Anyway, please don't use "preview-latex" in your package names unless
you are talking about the Emacs package: the Emacs system is called
"preview-latex", but the style files are just "preview". Yes, Debian
got this wrong, too, at the moment.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
More information about the tex-live