Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:59:32 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: RFP: texmf Message-ID: <20011205005932.GA12063@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com References: <20011203212637 DOT GA29013 AT redhat DOT com> <3C0D54FC DOT A6FDDA21 AT t-online DOT de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 01:53:51AM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >520066587150-0001 AT t-online DOT de (Jerome BENOIT) writes: >>I will try to rebuild the tetex-beta package this week-end. To avoid >>any confusion, I plan to rename it `tetex-bin' as suggested in a >>previous email. > >Very nice. Actually, I'm not so sure. How is this going to avoid confusion? The old package will still be around and it will be named 'tetex-beta'. >Maybe we should rename texmf-base to tetex-base? Also, if you (or >anyone else) would like to take over the texmf packages I did, please >do so. But suggestions are welcome too. If someone will be around to either fix setup.exe to deal with this scenario or fix the inevitable user questions then renaming sounds like it makes sense. cgf