James Bunton wrote: > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 07:39:17AM -0400, Alexander Hansen wrote: > >> I'm curious how many packages could get by without an explicit TeX >> dependence at all. For example, LyX seems happy to let the user >> configure it to use an arbitrary TeX distro, as does TeXShop. I'm >> sure we can't cover every TeX-oriented package in Fink, of course, but >> I'm all in favor of pushing the responsibility for this onto the user. >> > > I think that's a good idea. > > 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. > > --- > > James > 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 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... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
