Subject: texlive-basic_2005-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Date: Sunday 27th November 2005 19:28:58 UTC (over 11 years ago)
Hi Maintainer(s), Looking at the texlive packages in NEW I have some comments for you, leaving alone my big ? why one wants to include basically a ctan mirror in debian / dupe many things with tetex, instead of simply putting more man-power/work into tetex if its not modular enough. Looking at what I know from texlive its intended as a live thingie for users to play/start with tex? Is there such a huge userbase for this to include it (hey, its >600MB) into Debian? Im also not really happy with the current packaging, starting with the too heavy split of (source) packages. You have 65 of them right now. For example there are 19 documentation source packages, all building one binary. Better merge them into one texlive-source and build the different binary packages out of that one. You are left with 47 sources. Similar things can be said for the language packs, merge the *27* to one and built the binaries out of that. Down to 21 sources. :) Also I *suggest* to add a - after lang, so it reads lang-FOO, which is *IMO* easier. (Well, for all packages which dont have the additional -). To not repeat too much: The same goes for all different source packages that are splitted into recommended/extra/whatever. I think you can end up with less than 20 source packages, building up the same functionality as you do now with 65. Yes, that makes the orig-tarballs bigger, but I dont think thats so much of a problem here. Oh, if I go and read the included Licenses.txt i see they have the following listed: # The licenses codes as described on # http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/help/Catalogue/licenses.html # are # DFSG free licenses: # dfsg Debian Free Software Guidelines # artistic Perl Artistic License [... and so on] and a bit down: allrunes dfsg (and more package) Please: Tell me its not true that the DFSG is used as a license there. Note: Feel free to move the discussion to the -devel list if you want. -- bye Joerg === If you don't understand why your files were rejected, or if the override file requires editing, reply to this email.