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

Bug#381467: bibtex2html: please provide alternative dependency on texlive packages


On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:01:17PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:

> I think that a virtual package "latex-base" or similar would make sense
> in the long run. But it would require quite some work - and maintainers
> would still have to change their control files, plus check that the
> virtual package is sufficient for them.  Because of this necessecity to
> check for other texlive packages, I do not think that such a virtual
> package will be used much, anyway.  The only frequent use that I see is
> for code generators (from docbook, texinfo, sgml, xml) who would
> coordinate with the TeX maintainers that their code can be typeset with
> only the virtual package installed.

In fact, the case of bibtex2htnl ist quite special, and IMHO an argument
against a virtual latex package (see below)

> Ocaml people, do you know which LaTeX packages your packages need, or
> have you just written all teTeX packages in the Depends line without
> testing?  

bibtex2html needs: bibtex and kpsewhich. As a build-dependency it also
needs latex in order to compile the documentation which is written in
latex. The bibtex2html package is only about processing bibtex files
and does not need a latex binary, fonts, or (la)tex macros in order
to function (if I am not terribly mistaken).

The current (build-)dependencies are there because:
- Depends tetex-extra since tetex-extra provides the bst files needed
  for functionning of bibtex2html
  Depends tetex-bin for the bibtex binary
  Depends tetex-base is probably not justified
- Build-depends on tetex-extra because of 

I think that using a disjunctive dependency would be fine for
bibtex2html. What are the tex-live packages providing the bibtex
binary, standard bst files, and kpsewhich?


Reply to: