| 1 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> this might be worth discussion also (and make me even more late on my |
| 5 |
> schedule with merging texlive, but I knew I'd be) |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> In my overlay I was using a dev-texlive category for the texlive |
| 8 |
> modular texmf ebuilds |
| 9 |
> [as a side note : |
| 10 |
> dev-texlive $ ls | wc -l |
| 11 |
> 79 |
| 12 |
> ] |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> that was to avoid polluting dev-tex (which would be the current most |
| 15 |
> suitable category for those ebuilds), but well, both categories are fine |
| 16 |
> by me. What do you think about it ? I'd say not polluting it and put |
| 17 |
> them in a new category is better as it doesn't cost anything, but I |
| 18 |
> might have missed something. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I would have expected app-text, the current home of the other TeX |
| 21 |
interpreters, to be more appropriate than dev-tex. Then again, with 79 |
| 22 |
new ebuilds, it might be prudent to open another category. If you did |
| 23 |
that, though, I'd suggest putting texlive and the other TeX interpreters |
| 24 |
in the same category. Perhaps app-tex would be good. Would that cause |
| 25 |
much confusion, being one letter off from an existing category? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
On the other hand (or is this back on the first hand?), 79 new packages |
| 28 |
wouldn't be much of a splash in the 231 existing packages of app-text. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
The only time I use xp is when I need to swap a pair of letters. |
Archives