On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 05:59:57PM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: > The PDF/PS/DVI formats can be produced via dblatex, passivetex or fop > (with docbook-xsl). The last one was in contrib for a long time and has > been moved to Suggests for this reason [1]. The second is buggy. dblatex > was the only working one and I expect, that users of xmlto want to have > PDF/PS/DVI support in a common installation.
> > I don't think it's at all unusual to want to use xmlto without having to > > pull in all of texlive, so I think this package relationship should be > > demoted to a Suggests. > NACK. You can ignore Recommends if you know what you are doing. > Everybody else expects a full working xmlto. I don't know who these people are who "expect" xmlto to do things that require dblatex, but I'm not one of them. Then again, I don't know why xmlto was installed here in the first place, so I've purged it now. <shrug> > Installation of the toolchains is not enforced and you have the choice > to disable/ignore Recommends-installation. I therefor leave this as > wontfix. I fail to see compelling reasons to downgrade the package > relationship further (it is already a Recommends and not a Depends). The reason to downgrade it is that pulling in all of texlive isn't a sane default. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [email protected] [email protected] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
