[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Splitting off Feta

From: Mats Bengtsson
Subject: Re: Splitting off Feta
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:01:49 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113

One issue that comes to my mind is how to make the fonts and TeX
header files available to teTeX. So far, we have done it by setting
up a separate texmf/ tree with all these files and adding it to the
teTeX search tree by setting TEXMF. If we split into separate
distributions, we would have to take care of two separate texmf/
file trees (at least with the current naming convention with the
release number in the directory name). Even though we can just
duplicate the current solution, I can still think of several

Also, one version of the fonts mostly works together with some
other version of LilyPond, but I can think of several occasions
where an update involved changes to both the program and the fonts
so both had to be updated together.

One step in the direction you outline would be for the package
maintainers to split into two RPMs or two Debian packages. However,
it needs some extra job to make sure to keep the dependencies
up to date. For the Debian package, the teTeX integration is
already done by linking the files into the ordinary texmf/ tree,
so that's not a problem.


Ferenc Wagner wrote:
               Dear Gurus,

I think better separating the font stuff from the main
distribution would have the following advantages:

1. Tracking LilyPond development would be easier for the
   non-uber-hackers due to
    a) shorter build times and
    b) less build dependencies.
2. Creating and distributing development branch packages
   would be easier for the (non-uber-hacker) packagers for
   the same a) reason.
3. Downloading development packages would require less
4. Storing packages for various architectures would require
   much less storage space in the distribution archives and
   their mirrors (this issue has already been raised by
   Debian, which hosts the most architectures AFAIK.  The
   lilypond-doc package also goes in this direction.)

So I'd like to hear your word:

1. Is this split feasible at all, ie. are the fonts really
   architecture independent?
2. Are you willing to move them in a separate repository and
   issue separate release notes?
3. Have you got a better idea how this should be done instead?
4. Can you think of any related issues?

        Mats Bengtsson
        Signal Processing
        Signals, Sensors and Systems
        Royal Institute of Technology
        SE-100 44  STOCKHOLM
        Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463                         
        Fax:   (+46) 8 790 7260
        Email: address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]