Re: More fine-grained control in texlive?
I have to add my comments.
(BTW: you seem to have set the reply header to the list, so that even a
group reply goes ONLY to the list. That is the reason why my first email
only went to the list. I honour what people put in their header. For now
I put you in the To, too. Next email will again go to what is specified
in the mail header)
On Don, 28 Jun 2007, Rogério Brito wrote:
> upstream. But one thing is quite conspicuous: the size of some of the
> pages is quite big:
> rbrito@dumont:~$ dpigs
> 135200 texlive-fonts-extra
> 126180 texlive-latex-extra
> 56732 emacs-snapshot-common
> 45628 texlive-latex-base
> 37072 texlive-latex-recommended
> 30388 libgcj7-0
> 26940 iceweasel
> 25552 texlive-fonts-recommended
> 19784 texlive-base-bin
> 18056 pidgin-data
Aehm, I don't see any problem with this ... That is the reason why the
package is called
Well, if you want extra stuff you get extra stuff. TeX Live is big, we
already did split it into several packages. Further splitting is not
feasible because it would digress from upstream. Furthermore, see below
for doc splitting.
> As you can see, the biggest packages that I have on my system include
> packages from texlive. In fact, one thing that has just occured me is
> that there is a *lot* of documentation on these packages.
> Perhaps we could split the documentation on texlive-latex-extra-doc (and
For the doc stuff: No, we will NOT split the documentation from the
actual files. This was done in tetex, but it is bad, because there are
too many packages which require us to ship them TOGETHER with their
documentation. And no, none of us has the time and will to go through
all packages and check whether we can ship the docs separately or not.
So this is a no-go. Sorry. But we had this discussion already several
> I also want to make a stripped down live CD for some (Mathematician)
> friends and this would help quite a lot.
Good idea, but then you probably are better of to either install
recommended stuff, or everything.
> 1 - in tl-science, we have:
> alg, algorith2e, algorithmicx, algorithms, pseudocode, clrscode,
> complexity, computational-complexity, galois
> These are strictly mathematic/computer science packages. Perhaps we
> could have them in a tl-math-recommended?
No. computer-science has nothing to do with mathematics ;-)))
To be serious, after some lengthy discussion here and on the tex-live ML
we renamed -chemistry to -science, moved the natural science stuff
there, and created -humanities to make -latex-extra smaller. I think
this was a good move, but we wont move/rename permanently.
> 2 - is tl-doc-base really mandatory?
It is a collection of texlive, so it is here. Furthermore it ships some
important directories ..
> 3 - can we move some fonts out of tl-math-extra?
You mean the concrete fonts? Since the support file for the concrete
fonts are in math-extra, it is better to have the fonts there, too.
> 4 - in the current debian distribution, we have the package rcs-latex
> and tl-latex-recommmended mentions that it has rcs. Is this a
Yes. One of the few I didn't manage to clean up till now.
> 5 - the package euler (for math) is in tl-latex-recommended, while
> eulervm (which I heard is the preferred choice) is in
> tl-latex-extra. Is this correct?
You mean eulervm is in fonts-extra. Could be discussed with upstream.
> 6 - just for consistency's sake, we have beton (for text) in
> tl-fonts-extra. I would like to see it in tl-latex-recommended, if
> possible (so that we can typeset a text using the fonts from
> "Concrete Mathematics").
You mean beton is in latex-extra, I guess. And that it should be moved
to latex-recommended. But the concrete fonts are in math-extra, so we
would have to move them fonts-recommended, too. Hmm, I don't see much
aid in this.
> > > And can we fix some descriptions of packages? I see that some don't
> > > have description, were it would be quite useful for the packages to
> > > have.
> > That's easy, just send the packages and the new description.
> Ah, this I can help.
If you do so thanks a lot, but it is only a temporary thing, because the
next release TL2008 will probably not have descriptions for single
packages. This is due to the new infrastructural switch, and as long as
nobody writes an utility to update/include information from the TeX
Catalogue at tlpobj generation time there will be no descriptions.
> One thing that I would like to know about the way you all built the
> infrastructure is the tpm* files. What are they exactly? I want to join
TeX Package Manager files. No formal definition, read the source. Best
for doing this is taking a look into the files in
especially Tpm.pm and tpm-factory.pl.
BUT: For new releases all this stuff is outdated, I wrote a new infra
structure for TeX Live, please see
and the files under doc/, man/, ...
> * I just spotted something that seems strange: the tl-fonts-extra
> mentions groff, with a description suitable for the gnu troff, but the
> files that I saw in the package don't seem to have much to do with the
> actual groff package (which is already packaged BTW).
It only contains the groff .enc/.map files, some fonts etc. I am not
sure whether it is useful/necessary, but I also don't know what other
programs in TeX Live could need this, so we will keep the stuff.
> * Also, the tl-fonts-extra has a mix of highly desirable fonts (like
> fourier, garamond, eulervm) and some esoteric packages like hands,
> elvish (for typesetting Tolkien!), tengwarscript, among others.
> The former fonts I would really "promote" to another package, like
fonts-recommended contains the fonts for the parts of the *required*
latex component. Ie, LaTeX requires the support files for various fonts
etc (but not the fonts itself). Those fonts are put into
It is true that this is not error-free nor perfect solution. If you find
some obvious errors please tell us/upstream. But only because a font is
desirable for XY it will not be moved to fonts-recommended. Everyone has
different opinions on what fonts are important. I don't care for
eulervm, but would like to see the Optima support in -recommended ;-)
> * I also noticed that many packages has this as their description:
> "Macro package for TeX (the most popular)."
> which I think that could be improved a little.
> * in tl-fonts-recommended, we have:
> palatino -- No caption.
> times -- No caption.
True, but see above. We can fix this easily if you send us a file
then we can include it into the tpm2deb.cfg. All these descriptions are
taken from TeX Live tpms. Next year we will have (if we want to) get
these stuff from the TeX Catalogue, so best is definitely to work
through the Catalogue and send us fixes for the Catalogue, I can check
them in (Frank, too AFAIR).
> * lt-latex-extra also has "oxford", which should be moved to the
> publishers package (or humanities, according to its description),
> since it is a bibtex style.
To -humanities, if in case. Should be done, after all the other stuff
> BTW, this also seems suspect:
> pittetd -- Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Pitt. (for Pittsburg)
to -publishers, true.
I have put it into our TODO list:
* collection moves (also upstream)
pittetd -- Electronic Theses and Dissertations at Pitt. (for Pittsburg)
from latex-extra to publishers
oxford -- A BibTeX style of citations for the humanities.
from latex-extra to humanities
Dr. Norbert Preining <email@example.com> Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <firstname.lastname@example.org> Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
`Er, hey Earthman...'
`Arthur,' said Arthur.
`Yeah, could you just sort of keep this robot with you and
guard this end of the passageway. OK?'
What from? You just said there's no
`Yeah, well, just for safety, OK?' said Zaphod.
`Whose? Yours or mine?'
--- Arthur drawing the short straw on Magrathea.
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy