Bug#223728: Splitting teTeX isn't as easy as you think
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 06:47:12PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
>...
> > It would be nice if you were able to install LaTeX without having to
> > install e.g. xlibs, but besides a few MB disk space I don't see any
> > problem with requiring it to be installed.
>
> The main reason is the Build-Depends / Depends loop between tetex-bin /
> tetex-extra and xfree86 (and, going forward, potential forks from the xfree86
> code base, especially in light of the licensing issues with 4.4). At a
Even if it forks this won't make a difference since no matter which
branch Debian will follow, there will be exactly one set of XFree86
packages in Debian.
> personal level, I am interested in the feasibility of automated
> "scorched-earth" rebuilds from a minimal set of binary packages (for example,
> to bootstrap a signed packaging mechanism with a minimum of special-case
> code). I recognize that this is a different problem from bootstrapping a new
> architecture, which is a much more hands-on process.
Your suggested change has zero effect in this case.
There's a dependency loop in the build dependencies between XFree86 and
tetex-bin. It's obvious that this can't be solved through splitting
binary packages.
> > Splitting teTeX would be nice, but doing it right without causing
> > breakages for anyone is a hard task.
>
> I agree. I am not suggesting that my patch is immediately fit for application
> to unstable, merely that it quantifies the problem. (Pieces that aren't
> split out by the patch I proposed are definitely not dependent on xlibs.)
>
> > As examples, there are at least two obvious breakages in your proposed
> > patch:
> > - xdvi, texdoctk and metafont-xterm-support are splitted from tetex-bin,
> > but tetex-bin doesn't depend on them - this is an obvious bug since it
> > breaks upgrades; the only sane way would be to let tetex-bin be a
> > pure dependency package that depends on all the packages tetex-bin was
> > splitted into
>
> That seems reasonable, although I am not experienced enough in the
> implications of Depends vs. Recommends to determine which is appropriate for
> this case. It seems to me that Recommends is the right thing for
> dist-upgrade.
>...
A Recommends isn't enough since:
- a person upgrading from Debian 3.0 to Debian 3.1 is not expected to
install all recommended packages
- other packages (e.g. tk-brief) depend on tetex-bin knowing that this
dependency pulls xdvi
> > These are only the obvious problems I saw after looking less than one
> > minute at your patch. I expect several other problems to pop up after
> > splitted packages have entered unstable.
>
> It seems likely that other problems would pop up if the patch were not closely
> examined by someone experienced in this sort of package splitting. On the
> other hand, this is not the first time that this sort of issue has come up,
> and the consequences ought to be largely foreseeable and testable.
Sometimes there are bugs reported that come from the problem that
someting in tetex-base requires something in tetex-extra.
With splitting teTeX into more packages, the number of such problems
will grow exponentially.
As an example, texdoctk requires xdvi, but your patch lacks this
dependency.
> > Splitting teTeX (if it gets ever done) is definitely not something that
> > should be done for sarge.
>
> I would leave that to the judgment of the teTeX maintenance team, of which I
> understand that you are a member. I have found it useful to create and
I'm only a former member.
> maintain such a patch for local purposes, and would like to see something of
> the kind adopted by the Debian maintainers, but of course I don't have the
> global view needed to determine whether it's appropriate in the sarge
> timeframe.
IMHO it's too late for any teTeX splitting in the sarge timeframe.
> Thanks for looking at and commenting on my wishlist item!
>
> Cheers,
> - - Michael
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
Reply to: