Debian Developers - Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED

This is Interesting: Free IT Magazines  
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > November 2005 > Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED





You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread. To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to this thread please [click here]

Author Re: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Peter Samuelson

2005-11-29, 5:59 pm


First of all, let me cast my vote for -doc-XX rather than -XX-doc. It
makes much more sense from a sorted package names point of view, which,
as others have said, is important in package manager UIs.

[Norbert Preining]
> texlive-documentation-czechslovak texlive-cs-doc


Czech and Slovak are two different languages, 'cs' and 'sk'. You
should check (no pun intended) to see if both languages are in there.

> Reasoning: We use names instead of codes as several of these packages include
> support for different languages/variants (greek: various versions of greek
> with different iso codes, ...).
> texlive-langafrican texlive-lang-african
> texlive-langarab texlive-lang-arab
> texlive-langarmenian texlive-lang-armenian


Hmmm. Kind of ugly not to be able to use 2-letter ISO codes, but since
many of these are groups of languages it probably is the best you can
do after all. (Reminds me of my childhood, when people often used to
ask me "Do you speak African?")

> texlive-pstricks texlive-pstricks


Is "pstricks" a single binary, akin to psmerge or psselect? If not,
I'd hyphenate further, something like "texlive-ps-tricks" or
"texlive-ps-support".

Sponsored Links






Free braindumps | Software forum | Database administration forum

Copyright 2003 - 2008 webservertalk.com