Re: Technical Committee: decision on #119517?
On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 11:07:52AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Ian" == Ian Jackson <ian@davenant.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Ian> Most puzzling to me seems to be your position on groff. It's clear
> Ian> that if you install groff the base code does indeed work. But you're
> Ian> saying that there should be no non-working binaries, and if you
> Ian> install groff without xlib6g you get a non-working binary (and indeed
> Ian> there's no alternative sensible ditroff previewer). I was expecting
> Ian> you to say that gxditview should be broken out of groff, too.
>
> Strawman. The situation is not as you describe; it seems that
> groff suggests groff-x11, and lets see here:
Ian is referring to the version in stable, where gxditview was indeed
part of groff.
I split the groff package for other reasons (primarily removing large
components that few people use from the base system) about a year ago,
forming groff-base and groff. At that point, gxditview became a much
more significant part of the groff binary package in relative terms, and
I felt that a stronger relationship than 'Suggests' was appropriate.
However, adding that to groff would have meant that people upgrading
from a potato base system would have found themselves prompted to
install X, which didn't seem ideal to me.
I'm inclined to merge groff-x11 back into groff after woody. I haven't
yet decided what relationship groff should then declare on XFree86, but
I'd imagine that the Committee's decision here will be relevant.
[Hoping to provide useful information here; excuse me for intruding.]
--
Colin Watson (groff maintainer) [cjwatson@debian.org]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: