>> Somewhat related is that many packages wind up with LaTeX as a BuildDepends >> for no obvious (to the user) reason. This means lots of extra time to install >> something, and a sometimes alarmingly large list to install something simple >> from a fresh Fink. > > This is a new pet peeve for me, especially when validating packages from > the tracker. Typically it happens due to a BuildDepend on doxygen, > which in turn depends on TeX. And I don't know how often that is > actually necessary: some packages check for doxygen and graphviz, but a > normal build doesn't _use_ them.
I plead guilty on at least one count. *ducks* Is there a preferred policy of building latex documentation separately? > I don't have time just yet, but at some point it might be worth auditing > packages to see how many of these BuildDepends are spurious. > > Of course, we can't do that when packages use TeX directly to generate > their PDF docs... I've noticed that texinfo "replaces" tetex-base (<< 3.0). Does that place it in the same category as tetex and doxygen? (heavy-stuff-used-only-for-compiling-docs) or is it lighter-weight than a full tetex install? (aside: I rather like Texinfo for documenting my own projects...) Fang David Fang Computer Systems Laboratory Electrical & Computer Engineering Cornell University http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/ -- (2400 baud? Netscape 3.0?? lynx??? No problem!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ Fink-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
