Re: TL 2011 packaging
Hi,
On Sa, 28 Mai 2011, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> > Yes, exactely. That is the primary distribution media of TL, please
> > see CTAN/systems/texlive/tlnet/
>
> Okay, looks reasonable. Would you mind writing a fine-line recap about
> what texlive.tlpdb is used for? I see a few perl modules but didn't look
> much into it right now. Is that the unpacking logic or something?
Sorry, no time to do that. Please look intot the documentaiton
of the various modules plus all the howtos and presentations et cetc
in SVN-of-texlive-upstream/Master/tlpkg/doc/
It basically contains which file belongs to which package, and certain
directives on how to install it, plus descriptions etc etc.
(Did you look *into* one of the tlpdbs by now?)
It would be wise to make by yourself a upstream TeX Live installation
with the network installer and explore the layout a bit ...
> > - rename the .tar.xz (is .xz allowed in dh7?) to
> > (e.g.) 12many_2011.2011.05.29.orig.tar.xz
> > where the first 2011 is the general revision number, and the second
> > is the date from which we took the tlnet mirror (which is updated
> > daily).
>
> That looks good, yes.
>
> (xz is possible with dpkg source format 3.0; unfortunately, ftp-masters
> only allow gzip and bzip2 these days if I remember correctly.)
Ok, so we scratch the idea.
> > > > 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).
Again, making a minimal TeX Live installation is actually a prerequisite
to even think about packaging TL ...
> Okay, well... Using format 3.0 would unpack additional tarballs into
> equally-named subdirs, e.g.
>
> orig.tar.gz --> $pwd/
> debian.tar.gz --> $pwd/debian
> myapp.tar.gz --> $pwd/myapp
Ok, then forget it .
> That means, if we simply need to install all files of myapp into a
> package myapp, it's as simple as having 'debian/myapp.install' contain
But that is not the case. Each TeX Live package is more or less one
package from CTAN, and we are combining many of these into
bigger Debina packages. So scratch the whole idea and go back to
what I wrote in the beginning.
> Okay, so the doc packages are entirely different source packages?
No of course? Ever checked the current texliv epackages
apt-cache show ....
?
> > > > - move info files to appropriate places
> >
> > good thing is that we don't have to care for anything else anymore.
>
> ...because we install into TEXMF and TEXMFDIST just like upstream wants
No, because .info files are now handled by triggers ....
we only have to make sure that they are installed into /usr/share/info.
> to, right? Well, I'm not objecting to this -- quite the opposite, let's
> stick with what upstream brings -- I simply don't get why they split in
> the first place...
You mean the doc thigns? Check the bug reports about sizes of packages,
and the doc are the biggest part of the size.
> If understand that correctly, the second list can basically be read by
> find -delete after dh_install, right?
Well, yes, for example.
> Well, if you want to, let's use a wiki page on wiki.d.o and first
> describe what we get upstream and what technique they use to install the
> files. Then we can describe how we want it to be split up into binaries.
> That might help getting a clear overview and it might help me (and
> possibly others) to suggest implementation details. You wouldn't have to
> do it all by yourself, but it's your call.
Hahaha, but explaining all the details takes more time then writing the
code myself. In the TL workd one has to work oneself into the materia,
it is too complex. I tried my best in upstream TL to document every
single bit and piece and there are loads of ocuments. So I will not
and cannot repeat about hundreds of pages of documentation.
> 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.
Best wishes
Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
`The first ten million years were the worst,' said Marvin,
`and the second ten million, they were the worst too. The
third ten million I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went
into a bit of a decline.'
--- Marvin reflecting back on his 576,000,003,579 year
--- career as Milliways' car park attendent.
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Reply to: