[twg-tds] scripts, enc/lig/map

Paul Vojta vojta at Math.Berkeley.EDU
Tue Mar 2 01:07:48 CET 2004

On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 09:02:04PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
> I've been pondering the assorted messages sent over the last 10 days or
> so, and here is a revised version of the description of the proposed
> scripts directory for the TDS.  I may move it to a separate section
> before release, but for now the content is of course the important thing.
> Thomas, have I accurately described the purpose and usage?
> Paul, is the rationale clear?  (As for rationale in general,
> that's what the "Is there a better way?" appendix is all about.)

Rationale seems clear (as far as it goes).

> \item[\path|scripts|]
> for platform-independent executables such as Perl, Python, and shell
> scripts, and Java class files.  Subdirectories under \path|scripts| are
> package names.  
> The intent is not for all such directories to be added to a user's
> command search path, which would be quite impractical.  Rather, these
> executables are for the benefit of wrapper scripts in whatever
> executable directory a distribution may provide (which is not specified
> by the \abbr{TDS}).  This eases creating distributions, by providing a
> common place for such platform-independent programs.

There may be some confusion on whether scripts/ is intended also for
scripts that are truly auxiliary (i.e., run by something other than
a wrapper script).  The first paragraph says yes, but the second paragraph
implies no.

> We recommend using extensions specifying the language (such as
> \path|.pl|, \path|.py|, \path|.sh|) on these files, to help uniquely
> identify the name.  Since the programs in \path|scripts| are not
> intended for users to invoke directly, this poses no inconvenience.

Also, the sentence ``Since the programs in scripts are not intended for
users to invoke directly...'' is not 100% true, since their authors may
have intended for them to be invoked directly, but the distributor is
wrapping them.  Something like ``Since the TDS does not intend that the
programs in scripts/ be invoked directly...'' may be closer to the truth.

> For example, in the \TeX\ Live distribution, the Con\TeX{}t user-level
> program \path|texexec| can exist as a small wrapper script in each
> \path|bin/|\replaceable{platform}\path|/texexec| (which is outside the
> \path|texmf| tree), which merely calls
> \path|texmf/scripts/context/perl/texexec.pl|.
> Examples:
> \begin{ttdisplay}
> scripts/context/perl/texexec.pl
> scripts/context/ruby/examplex.rb
> scripts/thumbpdf/thumbpdf.pl
> \end{ttdisplay}
> _______________________________________________
> twg-tds mailing list
> twg-tds at tug.org
> http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/twg-tds

Paul Vojta, vojta at math.berkeley.edu

More information about the twg-tds mailing list