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

Re: [RFR] templates://auctex/{auctex/templates}

Frank Küster wrote:
> Justin B Rye <jbr@edlug.org.uk> wrote:
>>>>> And even if we added a dependency from preview-latex-style to
>>>>> auctex, that wouldn't give it the appropriate Suggests: on emacs.
>>>> What am I saying?  Yes it would.  That would be a perfectly
>>>> plausible way to get p-l-s to pull in emacs.
> You didn't read what I was saying

Apparently we're talking past one another.  Sorry if I'm annoying
people, but I seem to be having trouble getting my point across.

> : auctex Depends on p-l-s.

The issue is the dependencies from preview-latex-style, not the ones
from auctex.  If I don't have auctex installed, but I run across the
package description of p-l-s and think it sounds like something I
should try out, I get no warning that auctex would be useful.  (The
text also and more obviously implies a strong connection to emacs
which isn't reflected in the dependencies, but a "Suggests: auctex"
would cover that automatically.)

> Preview-latex-style is *not*at*all* usefull for a user of Emacs, unless
> they have auctex installed.

This is evidence that p-l-s should have a dependency on auctex
(which Depends: emacs) instead of directly on emacs.  Thankyou for 
pointing this out... but please notice that I couldn't deduce this
from studying the package description and dependencies of p-l-s.

>>> Why would one want that?  The whole point of preview-latex-style is that
>>> it is useful without Emacs.
>> No, the README.gz and the package synopsis are quite clear that it's
>> primarily intended for use with Emacs.
> David is the author of preview-latex-style and the current maintainer of
> auctex.  You'd better believe him.

If he disagrees with the docs, that's a problem, but I'm ready and
willing to help fix it. 

> Maybe the README can be worded better
> (is there a Project Smith for GNU projects?), I didn't check.  But even
> your wording "primarily intended" implies that it has other uses.

A Suggests: dependency would be precisely appropriate in such a
situation.  I already quoted the relevant chunk of policy:

# This is used to declare that one package may be more useful with
# one or more others. Using this field tells the packaging system
# and the user that the listed packages are related to this one and
# can perhaps enhance its usefulness, but that installing this one
# without them is perfectly reasonable.

Note the last part in particular.  If foo is primarily (but not
exclusively) intended for use with bar, that's somewhere between
"foo Recommends: bar" and "foo Suggests: bar".

>>  But I'm not suggesting a
>> "Depends: emacs".  Either (my original idea) preview-latex-style
>> should have "Suggests: emacs" or (as Frank implied) it should have
>> "Suggests: auctex" (which in turn pulls in emacs). 
> I didn't want to imply anything like this.  We already have
> Package: auctex
> Depends: preview-latex-style
> and that's it. 

This discussion is not about the binary package auctex.  Look at the
package preview-latex-style; neither its package description nor its
headers express any dependency connection with auctex.
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)

Reply to: