Bug#190721: splitting of texdoctk is hosed
Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
As I said before, the similar problems remain unless
we merge tetex-base and tetex-extra into only one big
tetex-base;
Not only texdoctk, but amstex, metapost, eurosym, txfonts,
pxfonts etc. depend on tetex-extra at present.
okay, I understand your point a little better now.
So the essential problem is how to split texmf tree, and
there is no absolute solution which will satisfys all users,
IMHO.
Have you any good design?
Well, here's what I think:
Extracting tetex-extra produces about 32800 1024 Kb blocks of data which
is split up roughly like this:
20758 blocks in /usr/share/texmf/fonts
7456 blocks in /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex
1518 blocks in /usr/share/texmf/omega
60 blocks in /etc (including the conf files for texdoctk)
Certainly stuffing a few conffiles from /etc into tetex-extra doesn't
effect anything, so my first suggestion would be to put all the /etc
stuff (as far as they are not exclusive to tetex-extra) back into
tetex-base. This also makes a cleaner break, since then tetex-extra
would only have things from /usr/share/texmf in it.
I think the most aesthetically pleasing, most logical, and cleanest
option would be to make a package tetex-extra-fonts and put the 21 Mb of
font stuff into it and put the rest back into tetex-base.
This would also be much easier for users to understand when something
doesn't work: if they compile a document, and fonts are missing, and
they see that there's a package called "tetex-extra-fonts" then it's
easy to guess where the missing fonts are. Where as if you start
texdoctk and it complains about some missing conf file, you think it's a
bug, because that's not the way debian works.
Okay, this would bump tetex-base up from 52 to about 61 Mb, but I think
it's a very reasonable, clean, and *logical* compromise. You might even
be able to put some more font stuff from tetex-base into
tetex-extra-fonts, if you have a logical break like this.
-j
Reply to: