[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: TL 2011 packaging



Hi,

thanks to Norbert for bringing this up!  I'm stepping in a little late -
I was on holiday the last week, and, having come back late on sunday,
our phone and internet connection dropped completely on tuesday
morning.  So I'm writing this un thursday, no idea when I will be able
to send the mail out.

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sa, 28 Mai 2011, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
>
>> > > >   	texmf-dist (TeX Live proper)  ---> /u/s/texmf-texlive (Debian)
>> > > > 	texmf      (TeX Live proper)  ---> /u/s/texmf (Debian)
>> > > 
>> > > Is upstream using such logic or why do have to put up with such in the
>> > 
>> > Yes, upstream has texmf and texmf-dist, that are related to the kpathsea
>> > vars
>> > 	TEXMF
>> > 	TEXMFDIST
>> 
>> Care to explain why? I mean, shouldn't we install in TEXMFDIST and leave
>> the other empty or is that something the tl package manager needs? (Read
>> below)
>
> Too many explanations, some files *HAVE* to be in texmf/ because this
> is where the binaries search initially, etc.
> Furthermore, TL keeps in temxf the TL internal stuff, while in
> texmf-dist is what the packages ship (cum grano salis).

I have no problem with splitting TeXLive into these two trees as
upstream does it.

In the old teTeX days, we only had /u/s/texmf.  We introduced
/us/s/texmf-texlive for two reasons:  Mainly in order to allow parallel
installations of teTeX and TeXLive.  And secondly because we wanted to
allow Debian packages with a faster update cycle to install the newest
CTAN version into /u/s/texmf, overriding the TeXLive-provided file.

The first reason is gone, the second is not very convincing:  First of
all, I don't think it was ever used, nor will in more than a corner case
(which could well use dpkg-divert).  Then, CTAN packages in a TeXLive
release have seen at least a basic amount of testing of their working
together, whereas updating one package sometimes breaks others
(e.g. hyperref and other packages redefining internals).

>> Okay, so the doc packages are entirely different source packages?

No, the idea is to allow installation of runtime files only (without doc
files) in special cases where space really matters, but have them
installed in the usual case (Recommends) for convenience (of users and
maintainers) and, in some cases, license reasons.

>> Since we would start from scratch anyways... with a project of this
>> size, I'd find git better than svn. It allows more pactical branching
>
> That is something I would support, too, I am using a lot of git recently,
> although I am not fit with it by now.

I have my work for the papersize stuff nearly ready, and would
appreciate if I could complete this in the next weeks with the svn
workflow.  There is one big task left:  Since I started to work on this,
there were unrelated changes in the squeeze branch as well as in the sid
branch.  I'd rather we do some merging in svn, so that we have one
reference point to look at when starting from scratch.

BTW, is there something like a git tutorial for svn users?  I never used
anything but CVS and subversion.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Sprecher B90/Grüne OV Miltenberg und Umgebung
VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg
Debian Developer (TeXLive)


Reply to: