should man-pages-* have Requires: man?

[Ivana Varekova]

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.
     Any ideas?
     Ivana Hutarova Varekova

[Alain Portal]

Le Lundi 8 Mars 2010 11:25:40, Ivana Hutarova Varekova a écrit :
>  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.
>      Any ideas?

Fully agree.

Regards,
Alain

[Ralf Corsepius]

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

[Ivana Varekova]

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). 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).
Ivana

[Ralf Corsepius]

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

[Adam Jackson]

On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 11:56 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 11:40 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
> > 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.

You think Fedora has to be POSIX?  That's adorable.

- ajax

[Jesse Keating]

On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:59 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps it would make sense to introduce a Provides:(man-reader) or some
such and add a Requires on the same in the man pages.  That way any of
the things which consume man pages can satisfy the requirement, not
necessarily being man itself.  Seems a little obnoxious, but if the
desire is to prevent a hard man-pages -> man requirement...

[Ivana Varekova]

On 03/10/2010 05:27 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:59 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps it would make sense to introduce a Provides:(man-reader) or some
> such and add a Requires on the same in the man pages.  That way any of
> the things which consume man pages can satisfy the requirement, not
> necessarily being man itself.  Seems a little obnoxious, but if the
> desire is to prevent a hard man-pages ->  man requirement...

Sorry for the late response, this solution seems fine for me. From my 
point of view man and man-db sould provide man-reader.
Ivana

[Ding Yi Chen]

----- "Ivana Varekova"  wrote:
> Sorry for the late response, this solution seems fine for me. From my
>
> point of view man and man-db sould provide man-reader.
> Ivana
> -- 
> devel mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Has man-pages-reader changed applied to Fedora 13?
If not, will it?

[Ivana Varekova]

On 05/06/2010 01:28 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
> ----- "Ivana Varekova"  wrote:
> > Sorry for the late response, this solution seems fine for me. From my
> >
> > point of view man and man-db sould provide man-reader.
> > Ivana
> > -- 
> > devel mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
> Has man-pages-reader changed applied to Fedora 13?
> If not, will it?

Hello,
for now man-pages-reader are provides by man in fc13, fc14 and man-db in 
fc14. man-db is fedora from 14 so there is no 13 version.
The man in 13 provides the tag just for the purpose to fix possible 
problem if the maintainer of packages uses this flag in fc13 too, it  
have not any other reason there now.
Ivana Hutarova Varekova

[Ville Skyttä]

On Thursday 06 May 2010, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
> On 05/06/2010 01:28 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
> > ----- "Ivana Varekova"  wrote:
> > > Sorry for the late response, this solution seems fine for me. From my
> > >
> > > point of view man and man-db sould provide man-reader.
> > > Ivana
> >
> > Has man-pages-reader changed applied to Fedora 13?
> > If not, will it?
>
> Hello,
> for now man-pages-reader are provides by man in fc13, fc14 and man-db in
> fc14.

FWIW I don't see a benefit of providing/requiring man-pages-reader over simply 
/usr/bin/man, and using the latter is backwards compatible.