Re: More fine-grained control in texlive?
Hi, all.
On Jun 29 2007, Norbert Preining wrote:
> I have to add my comments.
Nice.
> (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)
That was because you use Mutt and it respects the "mail-folloup-to"
header which is automatically generated since I put in my Mutt
configuration that I am a subscriber of this list.
Anyway, thank you very much for putting me back on the list of
recipients.
> 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:
packages
> >
> > 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
> > rbrito@dumont:~$
>
> Aehm, I don't see any problem with this ... That is the reason why the
> package is called
> -extra
> Well, if you want extra stuff you get extra stuff. TeX Live is big, we
> already did split it into several packages.
Quite big, indeed. :-) Much bigger than what I thought when Frank told
me that it would be bigger and more fine grained than teTeX.
> Further splitting is not feasible because it would digress from
> upstream. Furthermore, see below for doc splitting.
You make the packages as mirroring the upstream divisions? The projects
may have conflicting goals, of course (but you have managed to do a
great job, anyway).
I hope that the Debian experiences (as well as other distributions)
contribute in a positive way to TeX Live as a whole.
> > 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
Owww... :-(
> actual files. This was done in tetex, but it is bad, because there are
And I never installed the tetex-doc. Actually, I only installed when I
needed to read the documentation of a given package (and I use apt-move
to neatly maintain a "local mirror" of the packages that I download; so,
this didn't incurr in any problem with bandwidth for me).
> 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.
I understand that this is a tremendous task as the size of texlive is so
big.
> So this is a no-go. Sorry. But we had this discussion already several
> times.
An unfortunate situation. :-(
> > 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.
Well, I will have to change my plans. For instance, many algebraists
need xypic for their diagrams and it is in tl-pictures (if memory serves
me). There are many instances of people just desiring one or other
package (and its dependencies) and having to install a great amount of
other packages that they won't use.
Here, I think that something fine-grained like MikTeX would be nice to
have...
But I have one suggestion here: mirroring what is done for tl-latex-*,
what if we had, always (when applicable), -base, -recommended, and
-extra? For tl-latex-*, we already have this now and it would be nice
to have it.
Again, this is some food for thought.
> > 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 ;-)))
Hah. I appreciate the joke, but the computer science that I do has much
more in common with Mathematics than with Engineering. :-) Especially
when we are talking about computational complexity or Galois Theory. :-)
Oh, BTW, I just updated algorithms (I converted it to .dtx and .ins and
will upload to CTAN in one or two weeks, but I would like it to be
peer-reviewed first).
Can it be included in texlive for Debian?
> 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.
I still think that a package named after Galois should be in a math
package. :-) (No, I don't use it and never used it).
> > 2 - is tl-doc-base really mandatory?
>
> It is a collection of texlive, so it is here. Furthermore it ships some
> important directories ..
I see the contents of the package. Agreed.
> > 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.
Ok.
> > 4 - in the current debian distribution, we have the package rcs-latex
> > and tl-latex-recommmended mentions that it has rcs. Is this a
> > duplication?
>
> Yes. One of the few I didn't manage to clean up till now.
Nice that I could bring your attention to it.
> > 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.
Sorry, in fonts-extra. I would appreciate if you could discuss this with
other upstream members. (Sorry for the constant confusion with the names
of the packages from TeX live).
> > 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.
Indeed, you are right.
> 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.
Now that I see the purpose of fonts-recommended, I agree with you.
> > > > 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.
Ok. I see. I would prefer my contributions to last a bit longer than
TL2007, as it will possibly not ship with lenny (if I understood
correctly some earlier messages).
> 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.
I see. This will require the TeX Catalogue to be updated a bit, as some
of the entries are not that up-to-date. :-( For the algorithms bundle,
for instance.
> > 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
> http://www.tug.org/svn/texlive/trunk/Build/tools/
> especially Tpm.pm and tpm-factory.pl.
Nice. Thanks for the hint.
> BUT: For new releases all this stuff is outdated, I wrote a new infra
> structure for TeX Live, please see
> http://www.tug.org/svn/texlive/trunk/Master/tlpkg/
> and the files under doc/, man/, ...
Will concentrate on this, then.
> > * 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
> > tl-fonts-recommended.
>
> fonts-recommended contains the fonts for the parts of the *required*
> latex component.
Wouldn't it be a good idea if we had fonts-base for the *required*
fonts?
> Ie, LaTeX requires the support files for various fonts etc (but not
> the fonts itself). Those fonts are put into fonts-recommended.
Nice.
> 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.
Of course.
> 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 ;-)
Heh. I was talking about eulervm because it seems to be the preferred
solution for mathematics fonts. I feel that a disclaimer here is
desired: I never used eulervm and always use the combo beton/euler.
My suggestion was on something that I thought that would be a better
segregation.
> > * 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
> title;<packagename>;<fixed-title>
> 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).
Nice that you can check them in. I thought that only Robin Fairbairns or
Jim Hefferon used to do this task.
> > * 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
> ;-)
Ok, nice.
> 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
Nice. I hope that you can consider the other points with upstream
(especially the part on -base, -recommended, -extra), even if it is only
for TL2008.
Thanks, Rogério Brito.
--
Rogério Brito : rbrito@ime.usp.br : http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito
Homepage of the algorithms package : http://algorithms.berlios.de
Homepage on freshmeat: http://freshmeat.net/projects/algorithms/
Reply to: