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

Bug#464586: texlive packages' dependencies (was: Bug#464586: n/a, really)

"Richard Hartmann" <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 13, 2008 10:00 PM, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
>> "Richard Hartmann" <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> Well, if I can not use package A correctly because package B is missing,
> that is what I would see as broken Depend. 

,---- Policy 7.2
| The Depends field should be used if the depended-on package is
| required for the depending package to provide a significant amount of
| functionality.

A package like texlive-latex-extra, even one like texlive-science,
for sure provides "a significant amount of functionality" if *one* of
the style files it contains cannot be used.

> I know what you mean, but I
> disagree that a Suggest or Recommend is suffucient.

Why do you disagree?  Just because you had some "feeling" about what
Depends means, but were not aware of the policy definition?  Or do you
have reasons which are still valid after that citation?

>> Meta-packages like, say, "texlive-latex-recommended"?  Then we're back
>> to were we started from.
> Not quite, as the large meta-package could use the atomic packages to
> satisfy all its Depends. 

That would probably be *one* large meta-package. You know, if you try to
create one that approximates texlive-latex-extra, you'll have to include
one additional package from generic-extra because of invoice.  You'll
also need most of texlive-latex-recommended (see #385213). And that are
only the relationships I am aware of at the moment, there are already
some in our BTS and/or the upstream mailing list. 

Regards, Frank
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Reply to: