Hello, On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 02:01:17PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> I think that a virtual package "latex-base" or similar would make sense > in the long run. But it would require quite some work - and maintainers > would still have to change their control files, plus check that the > virtual package is sufficient for them. Because of this necessecity to > check for other texlive packages, I do not think that such a virtual > package will be used much, anyway. The only frequent use that I see is > for code generators (from docbook, texinfo, sgml, xml) who would > coordinate with the TeX maintainers that their code can be typeset with > only the virtual package installed. In fact, the case of bibtex2htnl ist quite special, and IMHO an argument against a virtual latex package (see below) > Ocaml people, do you know which LaTeX packages your packages need, or > have you just written all teTeX packages in the Depends line without > testing? bibtex2html needs: bibtex and kpsewhich. As a build-dependency it also needs latex in order to compile the documentation which is written in latex. The bibtex2html package is only about processing bibtex files and does not need a latex binary, fonts, or (la)tex macros in order to function (if I am not terribly mistaken). The current (build-)dependencies are there because: - Depends tetex-extra since tetex-extra provides the bst files needed for functionning of bibtex2html Depends tetex-bin for the bibtex binary Depends tetex-base is probably not justified - Build-depends on tetex-extra because of http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=72423 I think that using a disjunctive dependency would be fine for bibtex2html. What are the tex-live packages providing the bibtex binary, standard bst files, and kpsewhich? -Ralf
