Meta-package to replace tetex-extra (was: lenny release goals and the tetex->texlive transition)
"Kevin B. McCarty" <kmccarty@Princeton.EDU> wrote:
> The following ought to be useful to answer these questions:
>
> http://people.debian.org/~kmccarty/tetex-to-texlive-mapping/
Okay, so now for the second part: How to build a meta-package to replace
tetex-extra. I do not think it makes much sense to do this in an effort
to provide individual (La)TeX users with a smooth upgrade - instead I
focus on *packages* that depend or build-depend on tetex-extra.
The following mail describes my reasoning, the actual result is at
"RESULT"
http://people.debian.org/~kmccarty/tetex-to-texlive-mapping/tetex-extra_3.0.dfsg.3-1_all.txt
says
Brief dependency listing by TeXLive package
-------------------------------------------
This lists the number of files in tetex-extra_3.0.dfsg.3-1_all
(excluding READMEs and files in /usr/share/doc) found in each TeXLive package
1055 texlive-fonts-recommended
360 texlive-base
335 texlive-fonts-extra
322 texlive-omega
295 texlive-latex-recommended
235 texlive-latex-base
219 texlive-latex-extra
169 MISSING-IN-TEXLIVE
146 texlive-pictures
116 texlive-lang-cyrillic
66 texlive-pstricks
58 texlive-lang-polish
57 texlive-math-extra
50 texlive-font-utils
41 texlive-bibtex-extra
31 texlive-lang-vietnamese
29 texlive-context
20 texlive-metapost
17 texlive-lang-tibetan
13 texlive-lang-german
11 texlive-pdfetex
10 texlive-lang-czechslovak
9 texlive-publishers
3 texlive-formats-extra
2 texlive-lang-african
1 texlive-latex3
1 texlive-lang-greek
1 texlive-lang-french
1 texlive-games
1 texlive-base-bin
1 bsdutils
Among these packages, texlive = tetex-bin-meta already covers
1055 texlive-fonts-recommended
360 texlive-base
295 texlive-latex-recommended
235 texlive-latex-base
29 texlive-context
20 texlive-metapost
11 texlive-pdfetex
and I think also
1 texlive-base-bin
although I missed the connection.
So the missing packages are
335 texlive-fonts-extra
322 texlive-omega
219 texlive-latex-extra
169 MISSING-IN-TEXLIVE
146 texlive-pictures
116 texlive-lang-cyrillic
66 texlive-pstricks
58 texlive-lang-polish
57 texlive-math-extra
50 texlive-font-utils
41 texlive-bibtex-extra
31 texlive-lang-vietnamese
17 texlive-lang-tibetan
13 texlive-lang-german
10 texlive-lang-czechslovak
9 texlive-publishers
3 texlive-formats-extra
2 texlive-lang-african
1 texlive-latex3
1 texlive-lang-greek
1 texlive-lang-french
1 texlive-games
1 bsdutils
Among these, I assume that a couple are never used by packages that
Build-Depend on tetex-extra and rarely by ordinary depends:
322 texlive-omega
9 texlive-publishers
3 texlive-formats-extra
1 texlive-latex3
1 texlive-games
1 bsdutils
That leaves us with
335 texlive-fonts-extra
219 texlive-latex-extra
169 MISSING-IN-TEXLIVE
146 texlive-pictures
116 texlive-lang-cyrillic
66 texlive-pstricks
58 texlive-lang-polish
57 texlive-math-extra
50 texlive-font-utils
41 texlive-bibtex-extra
31 texlive-lang-vietnamese
17 texlive-lang-tibetan
13 texlive-lang-german
10 texlive-lang-czechslovak
9 texlive-publishers
2 texlive-lang-african
1 texlive-latex3
1 texlive-lang-greek
1 texlive-lang-french
Among these, the *-lang-* packages do *not* provide the hyphenation
patterns. This means that they are only probably only used if the
depending package has a specific connection to that language. I think,
therefore, that we can leave them out, with a due warning in the
description as well as the web page that describes the mapping. I'm not
sure about lang-cyrillic, though. And one file from latex3 also doesn't
warrant inclusion
So we'd have
335 texlive-fonts-extra
219 texlive-latex-extra
146 texlive-pictures
116 texlive-lang-cyrillic
66 texlive-pstricks
57 texlive-math-extra
50 texlive-font-utils
41 texlive-bibtex-extra
9 texlive-publishers
(116 texlive-lang-cyrillic)
RESULT:
Depends: texlive-latex-extra, texlive-math-extra, texlive-bibtex-extra, \
texlive-fonts-extra, texlive-font-utils, texlive-pictures, \
texlive-pstricks, texlive-publishers
And we need to check about
169 MISSING-IN-TEXLIVE
There are couple of bst files, e.g. from ams, which might just be
obsolete, same for pstricks and omega stuff, and afm files, about which
I don't care. But e.g.
- why has norbib been excluded from texlive? It's license is not nice,
but should be safe *at*least* for TeXlive, if not Debian?
- what about b-bb*.mf in the sauter directory? Are they just sources
for other files that *are* included? If yes, shouldn't the sources be
in TeXlive?
- what is bamstex, and why is it not in texlive?
In any case, these are either bugs in TeXlive or intended, and no reason
to change anything in the meta-package.
Comments?
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: