Re: Possible mass bug filing: non-doc packages recommending doc packages
Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
> 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
Very true, had I written what I had in mind: s/users/most users/.
>> 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 ....
And that's good, but it's still a special case.
Instead of discussing doc or nodoc, it would be much more valuable if
someone could tell us which LaTeX packages are really needed by docbook
and similar documentation systems, so that we could taylor a minmal
package for that - without a doc dependency.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg
Reply to: