On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
Hi,
I just want to point out FS#11501. Basically, as we are now adding info pages to packages, we are using a .install file which runs install-info. This tool is part of texinfo. Therefore we should either add a dependency on texinfo to all these packages or alternatively add texinfo to the base group.
Personnally, I prefer adding texinfo to the base group. It is simpler and would make more sense as the tools for the man pages are already in base. Let me know what you think. texinfo is currently out-of-date so I could do that change at the same time.
That sounds ok to me, but I *do* want to point out something that we've some of us have been irritated about for some time - even IF we assume all of base is installed, we should still probably have proper dependency info. I think we should actually do both.... put it in base, AND make sure we maintain proper deps
Yes, doing both would be ideal. The current packages with a missing depends on texinfo: /var/abs/core/binutils /var/abs/core/gcc /var/abs/core/glibc /var/abs/core/libgcrypt /var/abs/core/libtool /var/abs/core/nano /var/abs/extra/enblend-enfuse /var/abs/extra/gdb /var/abs/extra/libidl2 /var/abs/extra/libtasn1 /var/abs/testing/gmp /var/abs/testing/libgcrypt /var/abs/testing/mpfr We should fix the testing packages that are waiting for signoff. As for the rest, they include big packages (i.e. toolchain) that needs to go to testing first. So updating them to just fix the missing depends might be too much work. I could just add the texinfo dependency in svn so it doesn't get forgotten the next time we update these packages. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.