On Fri, 8 May 2009 13:10:02 +0200 Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote: > > How did that get into main? > > Long discussion, please see debian-legal quite some time ago. The point > is that modifications are allowed but the modifyied work needs to be > renamed (like with tex the program) as long as the status of the > packages is "Maintained" plus prominent notices etc. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00079.html > and many other links. OK, it's just a naming thing. Not sure how we can handle that in Emdebian - renaming isn't automated, at least not currently. "Gripping" texlive-doc-base results in only three files: ./usr/share/doc/texlive-doc-base/copyright.gz ./usr/share/bug/texlive-doc-base/script ./usr/share/bug/texlive-doc-base/control http://www.emdebian.org/grip/ 743K 2009-05-08 12:16 texlive-doc-base_2007.dfsg.2-2_all.deb 18K 2009-05-08 12:22 texlive-doc-base_2007.dfsg.2-2em1_all.deb Hence why I'd like to understand the problem and work out how Emdebian can have useful packages like docbook-utils without getting into problems with tex. Am I going to have to blacklist packages in main that don't allow modifications without renaming? There's no easy way of identifying such packages either. > In fact it was always like that that we installed the doc files > unconditionally, only on user demand and after recommends were installed > by default we allowed ourselves after discussion with some upstream > authors to split the doc files out. > > In fact, there are upstream authors (not texlive upstream, but of the > tex packages itself) that *force* us also in TeX Live (upstream) to > include the documentation *in*any*case* (currently only one such case). > Well, force, we could remove the packages, but that wouldn't be a good > idea since it is one very important. > > So we are left with the current situation. It is not that bad because > auto-builders do not install recommends, the rest is up to the sysadmin. It wouldn't be so bad if texlive-base didn't depend (not recommend) texlive-doc-base. This element still remains: "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." Shouldn't that be a Recommends? I still want to *not* have to install texlive-doc-base on systems that only want to use docbook-utils and have Install-Recommends turned off. I don't see why texlive makes that impossible. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp78ICghnuiK.pgp
Description: PGP signature