Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: RFP: texmf
References: <m3zo50xawc DOT fsf AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org>
	<20011203212637 DOT GA29013 AT redhat DOT com>
	<m3vgfox8k8 DOT fsf AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org> <3C0D54FC DOT A6FDDA21 AT t-online DOT de>
	<m3vgfmzduo DOT fsf AT appel DOT lilypond DOT org>
	<20011205005932 DOT GA12063 AT redhat DOT com>
Organization: Jan at Appel
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org>
Date: 05 Dec 2001 02:19:57 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20011205005932.GA12063@redhat.com> (Christopher Faylor's message of "Tue, 4 Dec 2001 19:59:32 -0500")
Message-ID: <m3r8qazcn6.fsf@appel.lilypond.org>
Lines: 39
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090003 (Oort Gnus v0.03) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com> writes:

> 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'.

How long would it take to phase them out?  A fresh setup.ini that
doesn't mention tetex-beta would make tetex-beta invisible?  Hmm, but
then we'd need a 'conflicts:' setup hint or so, and locally cached
setup.ini's could generate trouble.

Anyway, the best part is the fact that tetex-beta/bin gets a rebuild,
and we're talking.  Of course, the renaming should be a bonus, not a
pain.

> >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.

And it would need some testing too.  Phasing-out packages will be a
needed feature at some point, but maybe not highest priority now.
What about pre/postremove scripts, eg?

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke AT gnu DOT org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org