[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages

On Fri, 08 May 2009 11:59:27 +0200
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:

> Frank Lin PIAT <fpiat@klabs.be> wrote:
> > The development documentation for libraries and programming languages
> > should not be installed by the runtime.
> >
> > This probably means that packages like perl, python, texlive... should
> > provide a $foo, $foo-doc and $foo-runtime (or -bin, or lib$foo, or
> > whatever). Other package that needs to depend on that tool should then
> > depend on $foo-runtime.
> How could we separate texlive-$foo and texlive-$foo-runtime? 
> And would it make any sense? While many people install python just
> because an application they want needs the interpreter, users don't
> usually install a TeX system because something needs it - but because
> they want to right texts.

Not true, I have various texlive packages installed on systems where
I've never needed to write anything in TeX. I do use latex-beamer on
some systems but one other systems where latex-beamer is not used,
texlive is primarily brought in by docbook-utils, even if I don't need
the TeX parts of docbook-utils. Converting docbook to HTML doesn't need
TeX - only the conversion to PDF-type. We have docbook-xsl and others
for those situations where packages use docbook conversions to HTML at
build-time but docbook-utils is still useful.

Even then, there is no need for someone using docbook2pdf to understand
or even refer to the TeX documentation. Any TeX errors when converting
from docbook to PDF via TeX are a bug in the tool doing the conversion
to TeX, the user cannot be expected to care as long as their docbook
syntax is correct. TeX is not the "source" for that conversion, it is a
step-along-the-way and, as such, does not deserve to have the TeX docs

TeX docs should only be installed on systems where users need to write
TeX - any dependencies that bring in TeX docs merely to support
converting some other format into TeX as a step to TeX converting that
on to yet another format, IMHO *must not* mandate that the TeX docs are
also installed. texlive needs to make this possible for packages like
docbook-utils. That, to me, means splitting the texlive runtime out
from the docs.

I rarely write TeX but I write a lot of docbook and expect to be able
to convert that to PDF when necessary - without needing to care about
how that happens or how to write TeX myself. Please support
docbook-utils having a dependency *just* on the TeX runtime and not
requiring the TeX docs. The bug in that dependency chain is in
texlive-base which has "Depends: texlive-doc-base" - in the context of
'apt-get install docbook-utils', that is entirely unwarranted.

> Only in the special case of software documentation does it happen that
> the documentation is completely written, and the "user" (developer or
> buildd) just needs the "runtime".

Umm, we have a lot of people writing and building software
documentation in things like docbook ....


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpc93B6Ld4r6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: