On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:30:44PM +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2009/10/30 Jindrich Novy <jnovy(a)redhat.com>:
> I'm presenting a complete list of packages shipped in TeX Live to
> discuss another possible obsoletions:
I think the latest TeXLive doesn't include dvipdfm as its
functionality is now covered by dvipdfmx. Anyway, In both cases I am
the packager, and would rather see the texlive variant shipped and the
TeX Live 2009 builds dvipdfm when it is not explicitely disabled. Also
collection-basic depends on both dvipdfm and dvipdfmx. So I decided to
ship them both.
Again, would prefer if we obsoleted the separate package and went with
the texlive variant. Here however we may need to shipp a separate
package for the japanese patched version. Or we could integrate the
japanese patch into texlive - this may need some work though, as the
japanese patch seems to be unmaintined presently. Longer term I hope
xdvi just goes away, as its functionality increasingly gets added to
evince - xdvi is only minimally maintained at this point and is
I'm not sure about Japanese support here. IIRC Takanori MATSUURA works
on this support for TL2009. At this point I would prefer to propose
this effort to TL upstream so that we needn't to forwardport these
patches too often. I could imagine that Takanori could be official
upstream of the new xdvi package providing Japanese support if TL upstream
is not against it.
Yep, we should simply go with the texlive version - I am happy with
this, as dvipng maintainer.
I'm not primary maintainer of this one, but again, I think we should
go with the texlive shipped version (which is ahead of the version
available as a separate tarball).
Let me know if you need any help with this.
At last but not least, all the mentioned packages are obsoleted by
their TeX Live variant for some time already in the Fedora repo.
Jindrich Novy <jnovy(a)redhat.com> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/