Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I filed a lintian wishlist bug (#527363) requesting a I/W tag when non
> documentation packages recommend documentation packages.
That might be a good idea. However, for the texlive packages, we'll just
add lintian overrides.
> With Install-Recommends being the default, many packages pull in a lot of
> associated documentation. These documentation packages are sometimes large
> and could be suggested rather than recommended. I noticed different opinions
> about such bugs on the BTS (See #504042 that went on to be fixed and #526153
> that was not). I understand that upstream would sometimes like documentation
> to be installed alongside the binaries,
For many parts of texlive, the license requires binary distributions to
be complete. This is why we refused to create separate doc packages for
a long time in the past. We have only separated the doc packages after
Recommends became installed by default.
At least that's how I recall the order of events; I might be wrong, but
I think the argument holds nevertheless: We can do the splitting of the
docs only because it takes a deliberate action to get rid of them, just
as anyone receiving a "complete binary distribution" is able to rm -rf
the doc directory.
> Would there be any objections to filing minor/wishlist bugs against these
We'll just add wontfix tags, so you might as well not bother to file the
bugs against the texlive packages.
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg