On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:06:44AM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 12:41:40PM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > > I was talking to my wife, who is the biblatex user in our house, and it > > seems the dependency on biber is more of a recommendation. Biblatex > > seems to function OK using bibtex in place of biber. Of course there > > might be some issues that we don't know about, but at least it generates > > OK looking documents in her tests. > > Thanks for checking! It seems biber can be considered a more loose > dependency. I'd rather have it in Debian ASAP though, if only to avoid a > huge mess of documenting what works and what not. biblatex 1.1 says: > > ,---- > | Starting with this release, we'll leverage the possibilities of Biber > | to support features not possible with BibTeX. That's why most major > | new features in this release are 'Biber only'. > `---- Well, biber can be considered a recommendation. So, no problem there. > biblatex (as of 0.9b) has another new dependency: logreq which I don't > see in Debian yet. I can easily package it, I guess. I'll have a closer > look in the next few days. Maybe uploading biblatex 1.2 isn't such a bad > idea after all. :) This OTOH is a problem. logreq is a dependency since 0.9b and has itself a dependency on etoolbox 1.9 which is part of texlive and available in version 1.8. Yes, my fault. I shouldn't have put it back into texlive but instead kept it as a single package. Didn't do it, now it's messy. :( Thus, two options: 1) wait for TL2011, 2) package etoolbox again, conflict with tl, upload a new version of tl without etoolbox, package logreq, upload biblatex 1.3. :-/ Hauke -- .''`. Jan Hauke Rahm <jhr@debian.org> www.jhr-online.de : :' : Debian Developer www.debian.org `. `'` Member of the Linux Foundation www.linux.com `- Fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe www.fsfe.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature