Re: Too many conflicts? (tetex vs. texlive)

[Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>]

Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:

> Generally, I think that we should try to taylor the packages in a way
> that 
>
> - only stuff that needs the "real" programs from tetex-bin (or its
>   texlive counterpart), like (pdf)tex, xdvi, dvips, need to depend on
>   them
>
> - while others can get along with tex-common.  

Yes.

> Since the basic components of texmf.d are in tex-common I don't see this
> problem.  Even if it happens that tetex-bin needs a change, this change
> should be coordinated with Norbert and made in tex-common (and in the
> Policy). 

Good.

> In an other mail, Norbert suggested to move the scripts that are common
> to tex-live upstream and teTeX upstream, like updmap and mktexlsr, to
> tex-common.

Given the assumption that running updmap and mktexlsr only if they are
available is safe (without depending on tetex-bin), this is not
necessary.

I've uploaded a new version of lmodern for teTeX 3 that drops the deps
on tetex-bin and tetex-base (and deals with the lm.map sometimes left in
the obsolete location).

As for the "sample package" (with only the necessary code for a new font
package) I moved it to a separate repository for better convenience:

  deb http://people.debian.org/~frn/teTeX-3.0-sample sid/binary-all/
  deb-src http://people.debian.org/~frn/teTeX-3.0-sample sid/source/

Regards,

-- 
Florent