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
Josselin Mouette

2005-11-29, 5:59 pm

Le lundi 28 novembre 2005 à 08:07 +0100, Norbert Preining a écrit :
>
> Ok, this can be dealt with. I thought it would be better to have a
> strict relation between source and bin packages, but where it was not
> possible.


I'd go further, by asking why there must be so many binary packages. Of
course, granularity is good, but too much granularity only means
confusion. When I install a TeX system, I want a working environment
without wondering if I need to install tex-foo or tex-bar. That's why
I'm happy with the current naming scheme of tetex. A few packages, with
clear names, and no one is lost.

I know you're going to tell me there will be metapackages, and that I
should just use them. But it also means even more packages, which aren't
easily distinguishable from others. I've seen users not understanding
why installing gnome-session doesn't bring a complete, working, GNOME
"session", and I'm afraid your naming scheme will lead to similar
issues.

Regards,
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette /\./\
: :' : josselin.mouette@ens-lyon.org
`. `' joss@debian.org
`- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom

Sponsored Links






Free braindumps | Software forum | Database administration forum

Copyright 2003 - 2008 webservertalk.com