On 29.09.06 19:25, Frank Küster wrote: Hi Frank, hi Norbert, > I was just trying to suggest proper dependencies for debiandoc-sgml, as > an alternative to teTeX, and wondered why texlive-latex-extra does not > depend on texlive-latex-recommended. This means that a package that > needs files from both packages has to depend on both. However, I was > under the impression that there's kind of a "hierarchy" of packages, > texlive-latex-base < texlive-latex-recommended < texlive-latex-extra, > and no one would only want -extra without recommended. > > Obviously this was wrong - why? > What to w/ that report? Two drunken people speaking to each other, but no real result. Do we hat to take that report seriously? If yes, two new deps needs to be introduced: - texlive-fonts-extra dep on texlive-fonts-recommended - texlive-generic-extra dep on texlive-generic-recommended Hilmar -- sigfault #206401 http://counter.li.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature