tetex has been EOL'd by upstream.
I don't know what the Red Hat maintainer intends to do for FC6 - but clearly at some point the bit rot is going to demand moving to something else, probably texlive (which is what Debian is doing).
I'm assuming this means a namespace change for tetex packages.
I personally would suggest a namespace that is tex distribution neutral. The TDS is pretty much what all modern open source tex implementations follow and are going to follow, so it makes sense (to me anyway) to use a neutral namespace, like maybe texmf or something.
thoughts?
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 00:20 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
tetex has been EOL'd by upstream.
I don't know what the Red Hat maintainer intends to do for FC6 - but clearly at some point the bit rot is going to demand moving to something else, probably texlive (which is what Debian is doing).
I'm assuming this means a namespace change for tetex packages.
I personally would suggest a namespace that is tex distribution neutral. The TDS is pretty much what all modern open source tex implementations follow and are going to follow, so it makes sense (to me anyway) to use a neutral namespace, like maybe texmf or something.
thoughts?
Either texmf- or just tex- seem ok to me.
~spot
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:18:45AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 00:20 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
tetex has been EOL'd by upstream.
I don't know what the Red Hat maintainer intends to do for FC6 - but clearly at some point the bit rot is going to demand moving to something else, probably texlive (which is what Debian is doing).
I'm assuming this means a namespace change for tetex packages.
I personally would suggest a namespace that is tex distribution neutral. The TDS is pretty much what all modern open source tex implementations follow and are going to follow, so it makes sense (to me anyway) to use a neutral namespace, like maybe texmf or something.
thoughts?
Either texmf- or just tex- seem ok to me.
I'd drop the namespace on the binaries and have texmf- on the texmf tree components. That's closest to upstream conventions and "upstream distribution" neutral.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:18:45AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 00:20 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
I personally would suggest a namespace that is tex distribution neutral. The TDS is pretty much what all modern open source tex implementations follow and are going to follow, so it makes sense (to me anyway) to use a neutral namespace, like maybe texmf or something. thoughts?
Either texmf- or just tex- seem ok to me.
I'd drop the namespace on the binaries and have texmf- on the texmf tree components. That's closest to upstream conventions and "upstream distribution" neutral.
+1
-- Rex
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Axel Thimm -
Michael A. Peters -
Rex Dieter -
Tom Callaway