[tex-live] Matching TL package setups to my own
Gerben.Wierda at rna.nl
Sun Aug 26 23:12:22 CEST 2007
On Aug 25, 2007, at 01:59 , Karl Berry wrote:
> Another circular dependency: bin-wordcount and wordcount
> Strange though it is, I'm not sure circular dependencies are an error.
> I don't see any other way to express it.
Of course if foo-bin below again has dependencies you still can have
It is therefore I think better to have items (which may not have
dependencies but also cannot be installed/selected separately) and
sets (which may depend on other sets and items)
depend item foo-bin
depend item foo-run
depend set foo
depend item bar-run
and then not allow circular dependencies in of sets. Anyway, that way
you cannot get foo-bin without foo-run and v.v. but you also do not
have nasty circular dependencies.
Anyway, I think one should better have leafs (stuff below which you
do not *allow* dependencies) and which are the only ones who may
In simple cases this would mean you will have sets of one item. E.g.
depend item trivfloat-files
Stuff like execute should then only exist at set level (you only *do*
things if you have everything needed.
> The better fix would be to have one package "wordcount" that includes
> the bin-wordcount stuff, but like I said, that is something that
> requires experimentation and work.
> All names are supposed to be unique now! Independent of category.
> Categories are now used for two things I think:
> - where should stuff go (texmf, texmf-doc, etc)
> - how is it to be presented to the user (packages or schemes or
> That is true, and I agree they are not orthogonal ideas. I don't
> the current situation does any great harm once the above is
Maybe I should explain what I am trying to do and what this (imo)
means for this stuff in TL
My current redistribution packs up a part of TL's Master tree
in .tar.bz2 files to be downloaded by i-Installer (chunks). These
chunks can be rather large. E.g. a subset of TL's texmf-dist
corresponing to the former teTeX texmf tree + what I used to add to
that from TL. To make it possible for the user to minimize the
download/footprint I do not pack the texmf*/source stuff and I split
the texmf-dist tree in a chunk containing the selections from texmf-
dist/doc, texmf-dist/tex, texmf-dist/ftonts and the rest of my
selection from texmf-dist. I do this so that if only a package in tex/
latex changes, the whole fonts business does not need to be
downloaded again when the i-Package is updated. I also separate doc
for the rest as you do not need doc to run TeX.
This is rather coarse and I have been wanting to make this far more
finegrained. For that I only have one source I could possibly use:
TLP. That means that my chunks should become based on the tlp's in
TL, so I need to write a (perl) program to take TLP as input and
produce the basics of an i-Package.
I still want the user to be able to select something high-level, like
I want the use to be able to select collections and packages
I want the user to be able to choose to not install doc or source
until needed (which is almost never)
And most certainly I want the build process from TLP to i-Package to
be automatic. If too much hand fiddling is required there is no way I
can keep that up.
So, in the end the TLP structure must have enough information to
create the behaviour of the installer. The whole setup then becomes
data-driven, which is the important point. install.sh can do
installation on that basis, but so can the i-Package (and others) and
it is both based on the same information in TLP.
Circular dependencies are problematic for that kind of automation
because they make parsing the stuff too complex. It is also not
needed. Multiple texmf trees is OK (I am in favour of splitting the
stuff that is generated by make world in Build (which should go into
texmf) from the stuff that is maintained otherwise (which goes into
texmf-dist and texmf-doc).
(I had to stop writing this message and could only come back to it
after a day or two, so the whole thing is not very coherent).
More information about the tex-live