texlive + tex4ht

[Jonathan Underwood]

On 17/12/2007, Jindrich Novy <jnovy at redhat.com> wrote:
> I vote for 2) generally. Considering that TeXLive is mostly a set of
> collections gathered from multiple upstreams at some time, it makes
> perfectly sense to separate the most frequently used bits to their own
> packages and let them updated/maintained separately by their own separate
> maintainers.
> The ideal situation IMO would be to have only core TeX/LaTeX bits in the
> base TeXLive installation and most of the collections that need to be
> updated more frequently than TeXLive release cycle (~once per 2 years)
> out of it.
> To keep consistency with TeXLive, the main texlive/texlive-texmf
> packages could Requires: bits packaged separately as soon as someone
> decides to maintain it separately. That would keep the TeXLive
> updated, based on users' needs even in the middle of the TeXLive
> release cycle.
>
> Any thoughts?

Seems reasonable.