Re: Relationships between tetex-packages
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp> schrieb:
> From: frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)
> Subject: Relationships between tetex-packages
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 11:30:08 +0200
>
>> due to the reasons given by Elrond and me in the discussion under bug
>> #99994 (where it doesn't belong), I propose to add a
>>
>> Recommends: tetex-doc
>>
>> line to tetex-base and tetex-extra. Shortly: It's good for most users,
>> it annoys package authors that people don't read (up-to-date)
>> documentation.
>
> It seems good idea. It might be enough that only tetex-base
> Recommends: tetex-doc however.
Well, if one first installed tetex-base only and decided he wouldn't
need the documentation, then he will be urged again once he installs
tetex-extra (given he doesn't simply use apt-get). But of course
tetex-base is the important place.
> I don't know precisely the reason (it was already in the current
> relation when I began to maintain tetex) but, from the packaging
> point of view, there is a symlink
>
> civic:~$ ls -l /usr/share/doc/tetex-doc
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 10 2003-09-09 13:44 /usr/share/doc/tetex-doc -> tetex-base/
>
> and also the following symlink was provided in tetex-base
>
> civic:~$ ls -l /usr/share/texmf/doc
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 2003-10-24 15:15 /usr/share/texmf/doc -> /usr/share/doc/texmf/
>
> I guess these might be the reason that tetex-doc Depends: tetex-base
Yes, that sounds sensible. And we should keep it, because external
TeX-related packages will depend on tetex-base only, but bring their own
documentation files for /usr/share/texmf/doc.
> Is there anyone who knows historical reason?
>
> Further, I don't remember precisely but it might me who added or
> changed version of Depends: tetex-base (>= 2.0)
If we can't drop the dependency totally, I wouldn't bother about wether
it needs to be versioned or not. Never change a running system.
Thank you, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: