On 03/10/2010 11:40 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 02:59 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/08/2010 11:25 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
>>
>>> For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
>>> mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
>>> and man-pages package.
>>> Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man package. I
>>> think man dependences should be consistent in all man-pages* packages.
>>> From my point of view man dependency should be in all of them.
>>>
>> There is no strong dependency between "man" and "man-pages".
>>
>> "man" is just one utility amongst many utilities which can be used to
>> process man-pages.
>>
>> Ralf
>>
> Hello,
> from my point of view, the vast majority of users uses man to show the
> wanted man-page content (the reason to add the dependency).
Agreed.
Actually, I am having problems to imagine any system without "man"
installed, esp. because SUSV/POSIX mandates man to be present.
Still I am having difficulties to find a strict dependency between the
utility "man" and the contents. If all "man directories" were strictly
part of the man-package, there would be one.
> You are
> right, there are other possibilities, so man is not necessary (the
> reason not to add the dependency).
> I prefer to have the dependency to man there, but if the majority votes
> for not to have it there then it is OK for me too (better then the state
> in which each package handle this in the different way).
Agreed, the current situation is a mess (Say hello to shadow-utils,
lapack, blas and others)
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
