Re: Bug#402807: sisu-pdf: Should not depend on meta-package "texlive"
I had problems with tetex|texlive dependencies, and decided (for now) to
concentrate on texlive.
The current depends string is the following:
Depends: sisu, texlive-latex-base, texlive-fonts-recommended,
texlive-latex-recommended, texlive-latex-extra, texlive-pdfetex
Dependence on texlive meta-package is dropped.
[A couple of packages contained within the texlive meta-package are
dropped. texlive-latex-extra, which I believe is a fairly large package
is there for footmisc functionality (which has been requested).]
Feedback is welcome, if there is anything that can be improved, or
should be looked at, or just looks suspect. [Else, with this I expect to
close Bug#402807 (if that is ok with you Frank)]
Related threads are:
and more recently
and the build under discussion:
Texlive is huge :)
I would not normally copy you directly, but each of you have provided
helpful feedback on the subject in the past and (a) there is a release
shortly; (b) it is a New Year, and this gives an excuse also to thank
you and wish you a Happy New Year.
Thank you all, Happy New Year and best wishes for 2007,
On 14/12/06, Ralf Stubner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Frank Küster wrote:
> > I think we (the Debian TeX maintainers) should discuss and make a
> > general decision: Do we want the metapackages (in particular,
> > texlive) to be used in dependencies, or only as a convenience for
> > users?
> I would vote for metapackages not being used for "Depends:". IMO it
> would be ok, though, to use them in a "Recommends:" or "Suggests:". I
> could imagine that for some packages  it makes sense to have "a TeX
> system" installed, but it is not a strict dependency. In such cases
> suggesting or recommending "texlive" would be ok.
> cheerio ralf
>  Here I was thinking about editors like auctex or kile. However,
> this actually have a real dependency on tetex-* | texlive-*. I am not
> sure if that is really needed.