Re: Bug#395270: requires mktexlsr from tetex-bin package
Hi Julian!
On Don, 26 Okt 2006, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> Sorry for ignorant question (no time to explore further, but you'll
> know the answer or tell me to be quiet :-) - why is there a dependency
> at all? Is it purely for mktexlsr? mktexlsr is only useful if you
> have a working kpathsea, so why not just surround the mktexlsr calls
> with "if command -v mktexlsr" tests?
Yes, it is purely for mktexlsr. I *COULD* factor this out in the sense
that if a package *ONLY* needs mktexlsr, shield it as you said. And
those packages which need update-* and fmtutil etc only those depend on
the respective -bin packages.
But then I would get al those bug reports:
"I have installed texlive-latex-extra" and I wanted to run my document
using thie fancy .sty file, but it doesn't find latex ...."
You got the point? It is a real dependency in the sense if you want to
use this package you have to have a tex engine, somewhere.
> And I don't like the idea of depending on tetex-bin so that tetex-base
> gets pulled in automatically: specify what you *actually* want to be
> depending on.
No no, I don't want tetex-base pulled in, I want mktexlsr and a tex
engine. It was just my fault that I thought that tetex-base depends on
tetex-bin as texlive-base depends on texlive-base-bin, my fault.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> Università di Siena
Debian Developer <preining@debian.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUNCORN (n.)
A peeble (q.v.) which is larger that a belper (q.v.)
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Reply to: