On Oct 27, 2015 11:09 AM, "Rasmus Pank Roulund" <rasmus@pank.eu> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ista Zahn <istazahn@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I disagree. pandoc supports conversion to and from org-mode.
>
> I fail to see how this is relevant for the discussion at hand.
>
> > Making pandoc a requirement will enable other useful features (e.g.,
> > "Import documents from...", alternative pandoc-based exporters etc.
>
> AFAIK, nobody is working on this.

Not yet :-)
>
> > IMO pandoc is easy on Windows and OSX. It is easy on some Linux distros
> > but not all.
>
> > I use Arch LInux, where getting pandoc requires some work, but I think
> > that is an issue that the Linux distros need to work out.
>
> No it doesn't: pacman -S pandoc.

Good to know, thanks! That must be fairly recent.
>
> The relevant question here is whether we can accept to rely on pandoc for
> CSL support.  Any other feature is irrelevant.

That seems like a narrow way to look at it. Of course I agree that the
topic of discussion is citations, but I don't see why the bigger picture of
what the various options provide should be ignored.

I'll be happy to see improved citation support in org regardless of the
implementation details. But I do think pandoc deserves a serious look, and
I don't think the non-citation related possibilities it opens up are
irrelevant.

>
> At 25MB, a static, precompiled pandoc is probably fine, but for users of
> some OSs, such as Archlinux or even worse some OS where pandoc is not
> generally available as a precompiled package, it’s a really, really big
> dependency.  I may still be the best option, though.
>
> Rasmus
>
> --
> And when I’m finished thinking, I have to die a lot