[tex-live] RH packaging (was: Review Request: texlive-texmf - Architecture independent parts of the TeX formatting system)
pertusus at free.fr
Tue Sep 18 22:18:53 CEST 2007
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 03:30:52PM +0200, Joachim Schrod wrote:
> Patrice Dumas wrote:
> Patrice, on this page you mention that you want to include dvipdfm into RH
> and let off dvipdfmx, because it was not in teTeX.
The point here is not to include or not to include dvipdfm/dvipdfmx,
but to include them in texlive or outside of texlive. Since there
is a separate upstream both shouldn't be part of texlive. It is not
about the software quality or anything, it is about packaging quality.
As an exception I accepted to have packages that were in tetex in
texlive, even if they have a separate upstream, but I personnally
don't like it that much. In the end I proposed to have dvipdfmx in
texlive too, since xetex depends on it. But once again both should be
outside of texlive, as separate packages.
> Please note that this is probably not a very good decision. dvipdfm has not
> been maintained in ages, the small patch by ESR was irrelevant, and
> dvipdfmx is needed to use CID fonts. For (almost) all purposes, dvipdfm is
> superseeded by dvipdfm. Almost, because one should add the dvipdfm
> documentation to a dvipdfmx package, if one discards dvipdfm.
Discarding dvipdfm may be relevant, but I'll let that decision to the
More information about the tex-live