#564871 texlive-full: Please create a BD package

Package:
texlive-full
Source:
texlive-base
Submitter:
Hilmar Preusse
Date:
2010-01-14 09:06:50 UTC
Severity:
wishlist
#564871#5
Date:
2010-01-12 11:01:26 UTC
From:
To:
Package: texlive-full
Version: 2009-7
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

as discussed in #564241: some maintainers don't like to specify all single
packages they need for building the docs in the BDs. The reason is that the
packages may change (some LaTeX classes move from one to the other, etc).
Hence they specify texlive-full as BD. The is a waste of resources as that
package pull ins megabytes of TeX documentation, which is not needed for
building.
Please create a package texlive-bd, which is a full TL installation minus
docs.

H.
#564871#12
Date:
2010-01-13 20:34:11 UTC
From:
To:
Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:

Hm, shouldn't we rather restrict this to "full latex and fonts"?  I
admit that this is today most of texlive; but XeTeX-, LuaTeX- and
ConTeXt-related stuff is going to grow, and there's little chance that
they will be used much by build processes.

Regards, Frank
#564871#17
Date:
2010-01-13 20:34:11 UTC
From:
To:
Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:

Hm, shouldn't we rather restrict this to "full latex and fonts"?  I
admit that this is today most of texlive; but XeTeX-, LuaTeX- and
ConTeXt-related stuff is going to grow, and there's little chance that
they will be used much by build processes.

Regards, Frank
#564871#22
Date:
2010-01-14 08:58:18 UTC
From:
To:
On 13.01.10 Frank Küster (frank@debian.org) wrote:

Hi,
I requested the solution, which should be easiest to implement for us
(I believe).  Of course it won't be ideal (as it still pulls in to
much) but better than the actual situation.  If you have a better
proposal feel free to suggest and (maybe) even implement it.

Many thanks,
  Hilmar