On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 08:18:45AM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 00:20 -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote: > > tetex has been EOL'd by upstream. > > > > I don't know what the Red Hat maintainer intends to do for FC6 - but > > clearly at some point the bit rot is going to demand moving to something > > else, probably texlive (which is what Debian is doing). > > > > I'm assuming this means a namespace change for tetex packages. > > > > I personally would suggest a namespace that is tex distribution neutral. > > The TDS is pretty much what all modern open source tex implementations > > follow and are going to follow, so it makes sense (to me anyway) to use > > a neutral namespace, like maybe texmf or something. > > > > thoughts? > > Either texmf- or just tex- seem ok to me. I'd drop the namespace on the binaries and have texmf- on the texmf tree components. That's closest to upstream conventions and "upstream distribution" neutral. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpkQltIek64r.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
