On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 17:20 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Monday 2019-03-18 16:21, Martin Wilck wrote:
The asciidoc man page says "Backend output file format: docbook45, xhtml11, html4, html5, slidy, wordpress or latex (the latex backend experimental". That doesn't justify a "Recommends: dblatex".
Actually, this is exactly the justification for Recommends (as I see it).
Recommends is kind of a "stop bothering me and make it work", in much the same way the MS Office 2000 installation recommends DOS-WordPerfect 5.x reader plugins (or something of that sort) by default, even though WPG was becoming a niche.
If "recommends" is for niche functionality like this, what do we have "suggests" for, then?
Just because I want to convert asciidoc to something else doesn't mean I want to convert it to PDF
You know that argument can be spun both ways.
I'm unsure what you want to say.
asciidoc is for conversion of asciidoc format _to docbook_. Not for
converting _from docbook_ to something else. PDF generation is outside
the functionality of asciidoc. The way you argue, asciidoc might as
well recommend firefox and evince (for viewing the generated PDF/HTML
output). Or likewise, evince could "recommend" both asciidoc and
dblatex in order to be able to view asciidoc documents in it. This is
stretching the meaning of "recommends" too much - at least as long as
pulling in "dblatex" means pulling in 2000 packages.
IMO, the way tetex is currently set up in openSUSE, no package should
"recommend" it for the sake of PDF generation alone. Isn't it quite
obvious from the discussion on this list? How many complaints have you
seen that (packages like) asciidoc fail to generate PDFs out of the
box, compared to complaints about the number of tetex packages?
Martin
--
Dr. Martin Wilck