Re: Future versions of teTeX, and TeXlive as a replacement
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 20:13 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
>
> > BTW, one of the reasons for the large size of TeX Live packages is that
> > they include the sources in TEXMF/source. With teTeX, tetex-src brings
> > in another 120M. I guess it is similar for TeX Live. Could these files
> > be compressed?
Meanwhile I think that it is probably not as bad with TeX Live. I think
it really ships only sources in TEXMF/source, while teTeX contains
whatever CTAN has, including documentation in PDF format.
> Why not install them in a separate package?
That's another possibility. A -src package for every texlive-* package
would be package bloat, but one -src package for each source package (no
pun intended ;-) might be ok/
> Or not install them at all. I think the reason why the sources in
> tetex-src are *installed* is simply that you can't have a source package
> without a binary package, and the sources are in a tarball separate from
> tetex-base. If they were included, I don't see why we would need
> tetex-src at all.
That's also possible. Whoever want's to look into the dtx files can get
them from CTAN, anyway. However, this also raises the question just how
different TeX Live in Debian should be from upstream.
> While adapting the latex.tpm from texlive to tetex, I also noticed that
> the documentation sources are installed, not only the pdf files. I
> don't think this makes sense, and it probably contributes considerably
> to the package size.
Yes, that is another factor, even though the documentation sources are
compressed. In addition I think TeX Live uses PDF documentation to a
larger extend than teTeX. Due to the included fonts, PDF files are
generally larger than DVI files.
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: