This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFP: texmf


Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 01:53:51AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> >520066587150-0001@t-online.de (Jerome BENOIT) writes:
> >>I will try to rebuild the tetex-beta package this week-end.  To avoid
> >>any confusion, I plan to rename it `tetex-bin' as suggested in a
> >>previous email.
> >
> >Very nice.
> 
> Actually, I'm not so sure.  How is this going to avoid confusion?  The old
> package will still be around and it will be named 'tetex-beta'.

How long would it take to phase them out?  A fresh setup.ini that
doesn't mention tetex-beta would make tetex-beta invisible?  Hmm, but
then we'd need a 'conflicts:' setup hint or so, and locally cached
setup.ini's could generate trouble.

Anyway, the best part is the fact that tetex-beta/bin gets a rebuild,
and we're talking.  Of course, the renaming should be a bonus, not a
pain.

> >Maybe we should rename texmf-base to tetex-base?  Also, if you (or
> >anyone else) would like to take over the texmf packages I did, please
> >do so.  But suggestions are welcome too.
> 
> If someone will be around to either fix setup.exe to deal with this scenario
> or fix the inevitable user questions then renaming sounds like it makes
> sense.

And it would need some testing too.  Phasing-out packages will be a
needed feature at some point, but maybe not highest priority now.
What about pre/postremove scripts, eg?

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]