On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 07:04 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Enrico Scholz writes:
>
> > pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx ("Peter Robinson") writes:
> >
> >> Why don't you bugzilla these?
> >
> > This was https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173315
> >
> > Packagers seem to ignore remove-dep requests (e.g. ticket above is not
> > really solved, but issue is not painful enough (I am using now ssmtp on
> > most machines) to start a reopen-close-reopen cycle); therefore, the
> > maillist way. I will tell # for the other postings...
>
> My favorite one is docbook-utils requiring jadetex and tetex-dvips, just for
> docbook2tex and docbook2texi.
>
> Even if you have no intention of ever screwing around with tex, and you just
> want html or man page output, you still end up sucking down the entire tex
> hairball, the whole kit and kaboodle. I long ago suggested moving
> docbook2texi? to a subpackage, nobody cared.
>
> docbook2txt should also be moved into a subpackage, together with its
> dependency on elinks.
Sorry this hijacked the thread, but +1. :-) File a bug and write to the
list accordingly as Enrico's done.
--
Paul W. Frields, RHCE http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
Fedora Project Board: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board
Fedora Docs Project: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
