On Sun, Jan 06, 2008 at 03:36:13PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 07:30:46PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
And given that tex distributions even very stable and solid ones like
tetex can decide to disappear into thin air from one day to another, I
wouldn't bind ourselves to versioning and naming of intermediate
upstreams. E.g. I wouldn't even use texlive/tetex prefixes to
subpackages and dependencies. After all a package requiring some
version of LaTeX or dvips doesn't require that it comes from tetex,
TeXlive etc., so the dependency should be kept subvendor-free.
There is a plan to have virtual provides for tex/latex, discussion
is at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=410401
(The current packages go into the right direction wrt above, e.g.:
texlive-2007-7
texlive-afm-2007-7
texlive-dvips-2007-7
texlive-dviutils-2007-7
texlive-latex-2007-7
kpathsea-2007-7
kpathsea-devel-2007-7
xdvi-22.84.12-7
dvipng-1.9-7
mendexk-2.6e-7
dvipdfm-0.13.2d-7
dvipdfmx-0-7
Ideally latex, dvips etc will also land into their "own" subpackage)
I don't think so. The package name should be what upstream is. It's up
to the virtual provides to provide vendor independance.
--
Pat