Re: TL2009 build strangeties
Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
>>> And another .. why does texlive-binaries depend on texlive-base??????
[...]
>> Is there a reason for that? How should installation work in that way?
>> That are circular dependencies. Do we want to have them?
>
> Hm. Err.
>
> I know that installation of texlive-binaries failed because
> TEXMFMAIN/web2c was empty.
After some experiments with dpkg --force-depends, I'm quite sure that
texlive-base does not need to depend on texlive-binaries or luatex to be
installed. This installation order works:
(libraries for texlive-binaries)
tex-common
texlive-common
texlive-doc-base
texlive-base
texlive-binaries
luatex.
So the question is: Why should texlive-base depend on texlive-binaries?
Actually, there are two questions:
- Where is the dependency of texlive-base on texlive-binaries defined,
technically?
Answer: All packages that are based on collections containing binaries
get it.
- Why is it needed, or is it not really needed?
Answer: It is needed for example for texlive-plain-extra, which does
not depend on texlive-binaries, but on texlive-base only.
So what should we do? Either we move many files around, copying them to
the texlive-bin source tree, so that texlive-binaries can be installed
without texlive-base. Or we somehow tweak our dependencies.
One approach for that would be to change each dependency on texlive-base
that is originating from texlive.tlpdb into a dependency on
texlive-binaries. Since that would in turn depend on tl-base, it would
be safe.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg
Reply to: