Package: latexila Version: 2.2.2-1 Severity: wishlist I typically expect dependencies to be essential for a package to work correctly. So if A depends on B, I expect that A either won't work at all or will not work properly unless B is installed. (Perhaps I've misunderstood the sense of 'dependency' but that is the one suggested by their role in blocking installs etc. in package management.)
latexila currently depends on rubber or latexmk and these depend on texlive-latex-base (tetex-bin is a virtual package with no candidates). However, it is quite possible to use latexila with pdflatex and friends - rubber and latexmk are supported but so are many other options and further possibilities can be configured. Moreover, it is also possible to use latexila without texlive-latex-base being installed at all. There are at least two reasons one might wish to do this. First, one might be using and managing an installation of texlive from upstream. Mine is under /usr/local/texlive and is managed using tlmgr etc. (Or one might be using a different flavour of tex installation if there are any.) Or, second, one might need to edit tex source on a machine without needing to process it on the same machine. One might want to use the same editor on a desktop and netbook, for example, but only process documents on the desktop. Or one might use an institutional installation of tex located on a server for processing. I agree that the normal use case would involve a tex installation on the same machine and that most users would use Debian packages to install it but I would think it should be a recommends rather than a depends. Note that my suggestion would treat latexila in a similar way to texmaker and texworks which recommend, but do not depend, on texlive packages. It seems confusing to treat different tex editors differently in this respect. (It made me wonder if this one just wouldn't launch without tex installed but I tried it out and it seemed to work just as well as texmaker or texworks for editing.) I admit that other tex editors also depend on texlive but I would argue that they are mistaken as well... -- System Information: Debian Release: wheezy/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (600, 'unstable') Architecture: powerpc (ppc) Kernel: Linux 2.6.39-2-powerpc Locale: LANG=en_GB.utf8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.utf8 (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL set to C) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash Versions of packages latexila depends on: ii latexila-data 2.2.2-1 ii latexmk | rubber <none> ii libc6 2.13-21 ii libgdk-pixbuf2.0-0 2.24.0-1 ii libgee2 0.6.1-3 ii libglib2.0-0 2.28.6-1 ii libgtk2.0-0 2.24.6-2 ii libgtksourceview2.0-0 2.10.4-1 ii libpango1.0-0 1.29.4-1 ii libunique-1.0-0 1.1.6-2 ii libx11-6 2:1.4.4-2 Versions of packages latexila recommends: pn texlive <none> latexila suggests no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
