Comment # 9 on bug 1204746 from
First, I am very grateful for the texlive packaging, and the work done for
splitting these up properly. All my comments are meant to make it better, to
match everyones needs - creating your own new documents, compiling someones
else documents manually, or doing this in the OBS as part of packaging.

(In reply to Dr. Werner Fink from comment #7)
> There are enough dummy packages from upstream ... (all scheme and
> collections are dummy packages) and all spec files are generated by my perl
> script from the data base of upstream of TeXLive.

The collections are about function, and documentation is orthogonal to that.

The upstream texlive installer has profiles, and profiles have an option for
documentation, "tlpdbopt_install_docfiles":

So upstream considers installation of documentation a special case not covered
by collections. Adding a texlive-documentation dummy package is just mapping
texlive installer code to RPM idioms.

(None of the other tlpdbopt options are useful or meaningful for RPM packaging,
so this is just *one* special case.)

> (In reply to Stefan Br���ns from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Petr Vorel from comment #5)
> > > Unfortunately I'm not really an expert on packaging. Cc Stephan, who is an
> > > expert and I filled boo#1197367 based on info from him.
> > > 
> > > boo#1197367 is about ability to install texlive without docs (not having to
> > > have 1GB space with documentation which I don't need and waste bandwidth on
> > > each texlive update). Not sure if we could learn from other distros (Debian,
> > > Fedora).
> > 
> > You could use RPM rich dependencies (boolean dependencies),
> >
> > html:
> > 
> > 
> > 1. Create empty dummy-package "texlive-documentation"
> > 2. Add to "texlive-fancyhdr-doc"
> >   Supplements: (texlive-fancyhdr and texlive-documentation)
> > 
> > With this, installing texlive-fancyhdr should pull in texlive-fancyhdr-doc
> > when texlive-documentaion is installed.
> > 
> > 
> > AFAIK you cant "enable" suggested packages.
> I'm tired about those conflicting expectation/requests.  Like "No docs
> please!" versus "Where are the docs?"

I don't see this as a conflict. The documentation is there, and it comes in
separate packages, and I don't think this is a problem per se for anyone.

Only an option to easily install all the documentation for installed texlive
packages is missing. RPM rich dependencies where designed for these cases.

BTW, where can one find a repository with the generate script? If you can
provide a link, maybe someone can enhance it, without much extra effort for

You are receiving this mail because: