Holger Levsen <hol...@layer-acht.org> wrote: >> Irrespective of whether tex-common has a bug, all those packages are >> probably buggy, since it seems they depend on texlive-binaries. This >> package does not provide any functionality to outsiders. Only with >> texlive-base can they expect anything usable. > > hmmmm: > > $ apt-cache rdepends texlive-binaries > texlive-binaries > Reverse Depends: > xmltex > |xdvik-ja > texlive-lang-polish > texlive-lang-indic > texlive-lang-greek > texlive-lang-czechslovak > texlive-lang-cyrillic > texlive-science [... many more ...]
it seems we give a bad example ourselves. In fact we take the dependency information from upstream, but upstream has no problem declaring useless dependencies "just to be sure", while we have the problem that others start thinking they'd get anything useful from texlive-binaries. They get a couple of scripts that can be run without problems, but mostly they get binaries (and scripts) that won't do anything but complain that their basic input or configuration files are missing... > Should we file more bugs? Since the bugs don't cause any problem (the packages *will* have texlive-binaries installed, since it must be pulled in by texlive-base or whatever), I suggest that the TeX task force tries to update our TeX Policy. Then we start adhering to it, and ask other to do the same... Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg Debian Developer (TeXLive) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org