Bug#100332: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian
Julian Gilbey <jdg@polya.uklinux.net> wrote:
> Agreed up to here.
>
>> /usr/bin/tangle
>> /usr/bin/tie
>> /usr/bin/ctangle
>> /usr/bin/weave
>> /usr/bin/ctie
>> /usr/bin/cweave (CWEB stuff)
>
> Hmmm. These are small binaries with very little in the way of
> dependencies. Could probably lose them to tetex-bin-extra or
> tetex-bin-litprog, though.
That was all I was talking about: Creating a list of executables that
are not needed in the new tetex-bin-core which is intended as the
canonical build-dependency.
What I have in mind is a tetex-bin-core package that contains everything
that is needed to run latex, pdflatex, tex, bibtex, makeindex. Nothing
more, nothing less.
>> /usr/bin/dvitype (human "readable" output, for validation and as a reference implementation)
>
> Not sure this is a good idea to lose: it's part of DEK's original
> TeXware suite, and it is expected by some users.
But would you object putting it into tetex-bin-extra?
> Yes, these are also uncommonly used, IMHO.
>
>> /usr/bin/dvired
>
> Keep this one! It's only a tiny shell-script!
Keep it in tetex-bin-core? Why?
> Not sure about these.
>
>> /usr/bin/dvipdft (should go with dvipdfm or stay with it)
>
> Don't understand your comment.
If we have dvipdfm in tetex-bin-core, we should also have this one; if
dvidfm is in -extra, dvipdft should be in extra, too.
>> /usr/bin/texlinks(only useful for local customization in Debian)
>
> ???
texlinks is designed for creation of format links according to
fmtutil.cnf, but all formats defined for tetex-bin-core (mf-nowin,
(pdf)tex, (pdf)latex)) already have their links in the package. On a
Debian system, it is only useful if you create entries for local formats
in fmt.d/. I think that we can expect that people that want to do this
will have tetex-bin-extra installed, anyway (or know how to create the
correct symlink manually).
>> mpost,
>> mpto,
>> makempx
>> /usr/bin/makempy (MetaPost)
>> /usr/bin/mptopdf
>
> I would suggest that MetaPost is now regarded as a core component of a
> modern TeX distribution, so I'd suggest keeping it in the core.
Hm, well. So far, I have not looked at tetex-bin-core (and the new
tetex-base) as "core of a modern TeX distribution", but rather as "what
is needed in a Build-Depends". From this point of view I doubt that
MetaPost has its place in -core. What do others think?
>> Furthermore, I think that the following are probably not necessary
>
> Not necessary at all? No, I think they should stay in -extra, but not
> be lost completely:
I always implied "not necessary for -core".
>> /usr/bin/pktogf (convert packed font files to generic font files)
>> /usr/bin/gftopk (and back)
>
> This is used by mktexpk!
So we should keep them in -core. I just checked whether we distribute
any gf files, and since this is not the case, it seemed not necessary to
me. But we should keep in mind that add-on font packages might have .gf
files.
>> /usr/bin/gsftopk (probably no longer needed, since xdvik links against libt1)
>
> Ditto, although you may be right in your comment.
How do we check that? Or do we simply keep everything that *might* be
called from mktexpk?
>
>> /usr/bin/ps2pk (creates a TeX pkfont from a type1 PostScript font)
>
> Ditto.
But only (as an alternative to gsftopk) if you change mktex.opt, which
isn't a conffile. Should it be? Probably yes.
>> /usr/bin/allcm
>> /usr/bin/allec
>> /usr/bin/allneeded (create many CM/EC pk fonts at once)
>
> Why throw away these scripts?
In order to keep tetex-bin-core as small as possible. Not because of
disk space, but in order to keep it simply. I don't think that any sane
mind will call allcm in debian/rules before running latex over their
documentation. Am I insane myself?
Thank you for your comments,
Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: