[tex-live] Re: Proposal for a tex-base package

[Frank Küster]

[I took Sebastian Rahtz out of the Cc line - I assume he is subscribed
to the tex-live list, and I don't want to get more of his vacation
notes...] 

Norbert Preining <preining at logic.at> wrote:

>> >         /etc/texmf/updmap.d/00updmap.cfg
>> 
>> That would be just an empty file with comments, wouldn't it?  So I'd
>> vote for /etc/texmf/updmap.d/README
>
> The problem is that ATM update-updmap is checking for 00updmap.cfg. SO I
> thought to put in the all the stuff withouth the map files (so the
> dvipsPreferOutline etc stuff).

Yes, I forgot that one. let's have a 00updmap.cfg with the font
options. 

>> >         /etc/texmf/fmt.d/00tetex.cnf
>> 
>> Again a README would be sufficient, right?
>
> Again the same as with update-texmf, which checks for this or a similar
> file. I would put it all the initial comments withotu anything else.

We can also change update-texmf.  The purpose of the check, after all,
is to ensure that some formats are available at all.  So we should
rather check whether there's either a real tetex.cnf from teTeX, or a
texlive.cnf from texlive - or how ever they will be called.

>> P.S. Something else just occured to me: When creating the packages that
>> texlive will be split into, you should take into account that there are
>> not only many things that are missing in teTeX, but also a bunch of
>> things that exist as separate packages in Debian.  You should talk to
>
> True, but this is for later, to be honest. First I want the
> infrastructure working, then we can make special cases for special
> packages.

Of course.  I just wanted to point this out, because it might
considerably change the number of packages that are generated from
tex-live (and we had some discussion about the number of packages).

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer