Bug#464586: n/a, really
"Richard Hartmann" <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
> Catching all those reports in one place sounds like a good idea. An
> overview of how bad this is could help.
The purpose was rather to get an overview about how hard it would be to
fix all or most of them.
> But if you can not resolve those dependencies without one large
> package, that is the way to go. Leaving people with broken depends
> on purpose is not an option :/
No, there are no broken Depends. There are broken dependencies, but
Depends is not the right level in nearly all cases; rather Suggests or
Recommends. That is because it is always only a *part* of a texlive
package which needs an other package.
> That being said, what might help is to split them into smaller packages.
> Those would be more work to untangle, but it would probably result in
> smaller footprints.
That won't work. We'd basically end up having each CTAN package in a
separate Debian package, and that
- has already been rejected by the ftp-masters, on the grounds of
bloating the packages file
- wouldn't be a service to our users. Those who know which CTAN package
they need for their work don't really need Debian packages.
- would increase even more the amount of testing needed to get it
right.
"more work to untangle" is more than true, we simply couldn't manage it,
and would have even more bugs.
> In that case, you would need to provide
> meta-packages that encompass the larger collections, though.
Meta-packages like, say, "texlive-latex-recommended"? Then we're back
to were we started from.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: