Bug#381467: bibtex2html: please provide alternative dependency on texlive packages
On Fri, Aug 04, 2006 at 10:09:45PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Hi Stefano!
>
> On Fre, 04 Aug 2006, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I don't think "polluting" all packages that need tetex-whatever with
> > alternative dependencies on texlive-whatever is a good idea. It would be
> > much better to make both tetex-whatever and texlive-whatever Provides a
> > virtual package like latex-whatever and then ask all interested packages
> > to use a dependencies on the virtual package.
> >
> > This way we would at least have to do the work once, what if tomorrow we
> > will add in debian another latex implementation? Should we go through
> > all the involved packages again?
>
> Not completely wrong, but unrealistic. You might reconsider your
> decision in the light of the following points:
> - tetex is not actively maintained any more (upstream, not debian)
> - texlive is actively maintained and has regular release cycles every
> year
> - for sure not etch, but etch+1 will (?) have texlive as default tex
> system
> - there is no other TeX implementation around one would want to package
> for Debian.
>
> We, the TeX for Debian maintainers (that is all those working on teTeX,
> TeX live and related packages), have catered for this, and currently the
> two systems coexist, and in fact cooperate to a certain level (you can
> use texlive packages with tetex).
>
> But rest assured, the X minutes you would invest in adding the
> additional dependency will not have to be done again and again
> (considering that the initial packaging texlive was a task of 1 year, I
> assume not many will come forth and package a currently non-existent TeX
> distribution).
>
> Anyway, it is a wishlist bug. You can ignore it, or raise it yourself to
> debian-devel. But one think is sure: the introduction of a virtual
> package *WILL NOT WORK*, because what should the virtual package
> provide: a basic latex system only with the required components of a
> latex system (that are not a lot)? Or a specific subset of packages?
> This doesn't work, you, the one depending on tex implementations, have
> to say *what* you need, and choose the respective packages.
Is texlive a full replacement of tetex ? If so, would having texlive provide a
Provide: tetex-base or whatever not have been the way to go an the easiest
solution, instead of bothering a huge amount of maintainer with the change ?
And you can easily say that the latex-base package will have to provide the
subset of packages defined in the latex policy, and everyone should be happy.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: