On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 08:12:05PM +0000, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > This is a case where the Fedora "stick to upstream" doesn't resolve > the dilemna - on the one hand texlive is an upstream, on the other, > texlive4ht is an upstream. I do notice that upstream tex4ht has > updates beyond the version included in texlive. That's true of many > packages though, and it would be mad to start splitting everything > out. I disagree. It is mad to have something monolithic when there are different upstreams. The aim of texlive is to build a TeX distribution, the aim of fedora is to build a distribution too. So the texlive choices are not necessarily right for fedora. In the tex4ht case, the tetex-tex4ht package (I maintain) is much newer than texlive (at least in rawhide). -- Pat -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
