Re: Adding a latex class to a debian package
[I had wanted to comment on this, but it seems to have slipped my mind.]
Ian Beckwith wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 04:03:10AM +0100, Norbert Preining wrote:
>> On Mit, 11 Jan 2006, Ian Beckwith wrote:
>> > Would it be ok to just Suggest: tetex-bin | texlive-latex-bin
>>
>> I would suggest
>> tetex-bin | texlive-latex-base
>> (there is no texlive-latex-bin).
>
> er, yeah, that's what I meant. Honest :)
I find such a Suggests line a bit strange. If a package suggests 'foo |
bar' I would expect that packages foo and bar provide similar
functionality. This is not the case here. Only through there
dependencies (tetex-bin brings in tetex-base while texlive-latex-base
brings in texlive-base-bin) they both provide the (pdfe)tex binary as
well as basic LaTeX files (I don't know what the class in question
needs, but it definitly needs latex.ltx to build latex.fmt). Both the
binary and the basic LaTeX files are needed for a LaTeX class to be used
properly, so in my oppinion it would be better to list both requirements
in the Suggests line:
tetex-bin | texlive-base-bin, tetex-base | texlive-latex-base
What do the others think? Especially those with more experience than I
in this field. I think it is important to have some sort of guidlines
for depending/suggesting TeX packages before we file bugs for including
texlive alongside tetex.
>> > and wrap the calls to mktexlsr in:
>> >
>> > if [ -x /usr/bin/mktexlsr ]
>> > then
>> > /usr/bin/mktexlsr
>> > fi
>>
>> This sounds reasonable, although I would only call mktexlsr for
>> /usr/share/texmf as you install files only there.
>
> Thanks!
Wasn't there something about maintainer scripts should not use absolute
paths? In the TeX Policy we advocate
if which mktexlsr >/dev/null; then mktexlsr; fi
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: