Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > I fear this is going out of hand: for example, the rpm wil depend on > the latex/dvi program that happen to be the preference of the > packager. Who said we should have a dependency on xdvi and not kdvi or > whatever gnome uses? Actually, who said that we need to have latex > installed to use LyX (I do not think that docbook needs that, for > example). > > I am not trying to criticize your/angus' approach, but I am begining > to wonder whether the best would be to just drop the dependencies on > the tetex stuff altogether.
This is fine with me. In the debian world, we would downgrade the dependency to "Recommends" or even "Suggests", but AFAIK rpm does not offer this flexibility. > The same holds for qt: what about dropping the dependency? Also fine with me, because rpm produces a dependency on the shared libraries automatically. The last time I proposed this I got the answer that we want the version information ;-( Am additional benefit of removing the frontend specific dependencies is that a spec file that was produced by a multiple frontend configure run works again (this is of course a 1.4 problem). > I think the packages we provide on ftp.lyx.org are useful for people > who upgrade their lyx version, and therefore probably have the right > qt stuff installed. Being less strict about dependencies would help us > a _lot_. IMO we should list all dependencies that are absolutely required and probably not more. Fortunately rpm does the library dependencies automatically. It should not be possible to install the lyx rpm and then get unresolved symbols, but I believe that we have no mandatory dependencies besides the libraries. Unless somebody finds reasons to keep the additional dependencies I won't do the spec file changes I proposed yesterday. If you want me to do something, please say so soon, because I'll be in holidays for two weeks from saturday on. Georg
