Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com To: Markus Hoenicka Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] References: <007f01c16cde$5016de20$0200a8c0@lifelesswks> <20011114124323.C24614@cygbert.vinschen.de> <15348.5126.44000.631380@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Organization: Jan at Appel From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen Date: 16 Nov 2001 00:03:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <15348.5126.44000.631380@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (Markus Hoenicka's message of "Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:14:14 +0000") Message-ID: Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090003 (Oort Gnus v0.03) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Markus Hoenicka writes: > Did you install the teTeX texmf tree? Just installing Tetex-beta is > not enough, as explained by the Tetex-beta readme. This is exacly why I asked if there was any chance if this would get fixed (.. is not enough), or if tetex-beta would be removed or marked experimental again with this lifted package moratorium new strictness. It would be Very Good (TM), if installing a package (and its dependencies, eg, tetex-texmf) would be `enough' for the package to work. This is what Debian and Red Hat packages do, usually. Having a broken package that doesn't get fixed by it's maintainer is arguably worse than having none at all. Maybe Cygwin should introduce something like Debian's Non-maintainer uploads to address this problem? Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/