On Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:03:07 PM EDT Paul Wise wrote: Several packages ... > Recommends: xml2rfc ...
For IETF RFC development, there are specific fonts that are required for the
PDF format (these are Recommends not Depends because very few RFCs need to be
in the PDF format, so most people might do without both the fonts and the
other PDF tools needed. It's not a free for all if you're building documents
for the IETF.
The whole situation does seem somewhat messy. In addition to the defaults
changes, I guess things are getting moved between packages as well. We
recently had #1050053 [1] filed suggesting we change the Recommends on fonts-
noto-unhinted to "the appropriate package" since it's now empty. No idea what
that would be though. Suggestions welcome.
Scott K
{1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050053
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
