[tex-live] Re: Proposal for a tex-base package
frank at kuesterei.ch
Thu May 19 12:46:45 CEST 2005
[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
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
>> > /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
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).
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
More information about the tex-live