<strong>Report forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers &lt;debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#78926</code>; Package <code>tetex-bin</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Bug#78926: split dvips off to seperate package
Reply-To: Chad Miller <cmiller@surfsouth.com>, 78926@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Chad Miller <cmiller@surfsouth.com>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 15:05:06 GMT
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.78926.B.9761145265052@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 78926
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by bugs@bugs.debian.org id=B.9761145265052
          (code B ref -1); Wed, 06 Dec 2000 15:05:06 GMT
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:56:28 -0500
From: Chad Miller <cmiller@surfsouth.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Message-ID: <20001206095628.A30360@cahoots.surfsouth.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
X-mom-quote: Finish that packet--children are offline in India!
X-key-info: GPG key at http://web.chad.org/home/gpgkey
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: tetex-bin
Severity: wishlist

If possible, it'd be nice if dvips were a seperate package, so that users
of printfilters, e.g., don't need tetex-bin installed.




<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>Chad Miller &lt;cmiller@surfsouth.com&gt;</code>:<br>
New Bug report received and forwarded.  Copy sent to <code>teTeX maintainers &lt;debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org&gt;</code>.


-t

From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Chad Miller <cmiller@surfsouth.com>
Subject: Bug#78926: Acknowledgement (split dvips off to seperate package)
Message-ID: <handler.78926.B.9761145265052.ack@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <20001206095628.A30360@cahoots.surfsouth.com>
References: <20001206095628.A30360@cahoots.surfsouth.com>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack 78926

Thank you for the problem report you have sent regarding Debian.
This is an automatically generated reply, to let you know your message has
been received.  It is being forwarded to the developers mailing list for
their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>

If you wish to submit further information on your problem, please send
it to 78926@bugs.debian.org (and *not* to
bugs@bugs.debian.org).

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)



Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 6 Dec 2000 14:55:26 +0000
From cmiller@surfsouth.com Wed Dec 06 08:55:26 2000
Return-path: <cmiller@surfsouth.com>
Received: from shelly.surfsouth.com [205.139.60.100] (root)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 143fyd-0001Io-00; Wed, 06 Dec 2000 08:55:25 -0600
Received: from canard (canard.surfsouth.com [205.139.60.178])
	by shelly.surfsouth.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA16970;
	Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:55:04 -0500
Received: from cmiller by canard with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 143fzg-0007tj-00; Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:56:28 -0500
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 09:56:28 -0500
From: Chad Miller <cmiller@surfsouth.com>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: split dvips off to seperate package
Message-ID: <20001206095628.A30360@cahoots.surfsouth.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
X-mom-quote: Finish that packet--children are offline in India!
X-key-info: GPG key at http://web.chad.org/home/gpgkey
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: tetex-bin
Severity: wishlist

If possible, it'd be nice if dvips were a seperate package, so that users
of printfilters, e.g., don't need tetex-bin installed.




<strong>Merged 78926 100332.</strong>
Request was from <code>&quot;C.M. Connelly&quot; &lt;c@eskimo.com&gt;</code>
to <code>control@bugs.debian.org</code>. 


Received: (at control) by bugs.debian.org; 25 Feb 2002 22:33:28 +0000
From c@eskimo.com Mon Feb 25 16:33:28 2002
Return-path: <c@eskimo.com>
Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net) [207.217.120.50] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 16fTgW-0002tZ-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:33:28 -0600
Received: from lsanca1-ar16-4-33-150-166.elnk.dsl.gtei.net ([4.33.150.166] helo=diziet.clawpaws.net)
	by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1)
	id 16fTgU-0001CB-00; Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:33:26 -0800
Received: from diziet.clawpaws.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by diziet.clawpaws.net (8.12.1/8.12.1/Debian -5) with ESMTP id g1PMWSTJ002541;
	Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:32:28 -0800
Message-Id: <200202252232.g1PMWSTJ002541@diziet.clawpaws.net>
To: control@bugs.debian.org
cc: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
From: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
Reply-To: "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
Organization: Sam Hill Cabal, DS
Subject: Merge dvips split bugs
X-Mailer: mh-e 6.0; nmh 1.0.4+dev; Emacs 21.1
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:32:02 -0800
Sender: c@eskimo.com
Delivered-To: control@bugs.debian.org


merge 78926 100332
thanks




<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers &lt;debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#78926</code>; Package <code>tetex-bin</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>

X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#78926: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian
Reply-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,        tetex-base split <302035@bugs.debian.org>, 78926@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Frank =?UTF-8?Q?K=C3=BCster?= <frank@debian.org>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:03:20 UTC
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.78926.B78926.11301365947940@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 78926
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
Received: via spool by 78926-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B78926.11301365947940
          (code B ref 78926); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:03:20 UTC
Received: (at 78926) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Oct 2005 06:49:54 +0000
Received: from idmailgate2.unizh.ch [130.60.127.101] 
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
	id 1ETw9Z-00022l-00; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:49:54 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([130.60.169.166])
	by idmailgate2.unizh.ch (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j9O6nVJP026991;
	Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:49:49 +0200
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost.localdomain ident=frank)
	by localhost.localdomain with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1ESxsh-0001BP-Co; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:27 +0200
To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,
        tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
Mail-Followup-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>, tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
From: Frank =?UTF-8?Q?K=C3=BCster?= <frank@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:25 +0200
Message-ID: <87pspzaqra.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
Delivered-To: 78926@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_30 autolearn=no 
	version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 8


Dear all,

there are a lot of requests for a more clever splitting of tetex-base,
-bin, and -extra in the BTS.  Now that we are early in the release cycle
of etch, and teTeX-3.0 is finally in unstable, I want to approach the
question of splitting.

This mail goes to all the bugs that refer to splitting, and (via Blind
Cc) to all submitters (and some other related parties who have in the
past expressed interest in the topic).  Followups should go *only* to
the bugs in the To: field, this will reach me and the Co-maintainers.
Please restrict yourself to one of them if your answer only affects one
of the packages; tetex-extra is built from the same sources as base.

Submitters, if you are interested in further discussion, please
subscribe[1] to (one of ) the bugs in the To field (or the
debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org mailing list).



In the following, I will try to

1. summarize the requests we have received and their motivation

2. propose some guidelines for splitting

3. propose some possible splitting schemes.

4. timeline

Here we go:

1. Summary of the requests we have received and their motivation
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
   (plus some comments in [])


regarding tetex-bin

a) #78926: If possible, it'd be nice if dvips were a seperate package, so t=
hat users
   of printfilters, e.g., don't need tetex-bin installed.

   [is this really a realistic scenario?  How many systems are there that
   print dvi, but don't produce it?]

b) #100332: please move xdvi to its own package
   Motivation:  This would save lots of packages that build documentation
   with TeX the indirect build-dependency on xlibs
=20
   [maybe not so grave any more since xlibs are modularized, but
   generally a worthwile goal]
=20
c) #223728, #223734: tetex-bin needn't depend on xlibs (and split of stuff
   depending on perl-tk, and corresponding patch for tetex-base)

   Additional motivation:  allow (pdf)tex to be run on production
   machines without X installed.=20
=20
regarding tetex-base
=20
d) #302035: PSNFSS is a required part of LaTeX
   Motivation: tetex-base should contain everything that is part of core
   LaTeX=20
=20
e) #324868: Move Bluesky fonts to tetex-base
   Motivation: tetex-base should be sufficient for basic document
   processing, and today this means to be able to produce PDF files with
   Type1 fonts (which Bluesky provides at least for english)
=20
   [Along these lines, we should consider to move often used LaTeX
   packages to -base]
=20
f) #32260, #35892: Split tetex-extra to minimize disk space requirements, a=
nd
   allow bibtex (and other programs in -bin) to run sensibly with only
   -base installed.
=20
   [this is an understandable wish for bibtex, but not necessarily
   sensible for exotic engines like omega, aleph, ...]
=20
g) #51869: Like before, but discusses the issue of splitting tetex-doc
   off, or alternatively having smaller junks with the respective docs
   included.=20
=20
h) #278901: Like before, but focuses on the regular download size in
   unstable, which could only be reduced by an artificial splitting of
   the *source* package.  This is a different topic, we are *not*
   discussing this here.
=20
i) #327480: Please separate the .pfb files of Type1 fonts and make them
   available to X11=20
=20
   [partly resolved since CM fonts are available as TrueType for X11;
   still valid for other fonts]


2. guidelines for splitting
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Etch will (if nothing very surprising happens) come with two alternative
TeX systems: teTeX and TeX-Live.  TeX-Live is not only much bigger and
more comprehensive, it is also much more fine-grained.  This will allow
users to install only the specific subset they need.  Therefore, I think
we can refer people concerned with download size or disk space to using
TeX-live and simply not care about this problem;  teTeX is then for
everyone who wants a standard collection of things without bothering
about disk space, or about selecting from a large list.

This effectively resolves bugs f, g, and h, except that we should
consider the aspect of splitting doc files.

I expect that teTeX will continue to be the standard package for
creating documentation when building a Debian package, and I think that
we should try to develop our splitting schemes mainly along the needs of
this application.  End users will probably just install everything, or
switch to tex-live.

From this, I find the following guidelines:

1. do not bloat indirect build-deps

2. provide a tetex-base that is sufficient for most generated tex-files
   (by debiandoc-sgml, linuxdoc, texinfo, or similar approaches)

3. do not include unnecessary stuff in the basic packages needed for
   most build-deps


3. Some possible splitting schemes
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

For each of tetex-base and tetex-bin, I see two possible splitting
schemes - one that would fulfill minimal requirements, the other
"better" but more difficult and more work.

3.1 tetex-bin

- To me it seems that splitting of dvips (a) will gain us hardly
  anything, and most users will install it anyway; currently the same is
  true for build-depending packages, although more might switch to
  direct pdf generation later.

- Splitting off things that depend on xlibs and/or perl-tk seems to make
  sense, even with modular xlibs.

- I don't think, however, that splitting off things that depend
  on perl generally is worthwile; because of dpkg-dev perl is
  build-essential, anyway.  Similarly, the new ConTeXt scripts written
  in Ruby deserve a Suggests: ruby, but not a splitting.=20

- All binaries in /usr/bin make up to 6.5Mbyte; xdvi.real and mf (the
  ones that depend on xlibs) are 764K.  From the remaining 5.75MByte,
  4.7 are from big binaries with sizes >=3D 100Kbyte, but in fact most
  build-depending packages only need pdfetex, mf(-nowin) and dvips,
  together 1.3Mbyte (all numbers are from teTeX-3.0), plust many of the
  small executables.

Thus, we get=20

* minimal scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tetex-bin is split into tetex-bin-nox and tetex-bin-x11; tetex-bin
continues to exist as a dummy package.  Besides sorting files with dh_*
and writing the necessary control information, the only thing we have to
do is connected to mf: we probably need to set up an alternatives system
for mf-nowin and mfw.

* advanced scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Additionally, tetex-bin-nox is split into tetex-bin-mini and
tetex-bin-extra (or similar), where tetex-bin-mini contains only
pdfetex, mf-nowin and dvips plus the needed scripts/binaries smaller
than 100K.  This would require more work, because finding out which
small programs are needed isn't trivial.

* for tetex-bin, I would also find it acceptable to not split it
  further.=20



3.2 tetex-base

For tetex-base, the additional splitting-off of a type1-fonts-x11
package can be added to both following splitting schemes:

* minimal scheme
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just move PSNFSS and the Bluesky fonts to tetex-base (e and d, #324868,
#302035) and be done.=20=20

* advanced scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alternatively, we could create a tetex-base that is in fact a
latex-base:=20

As Ralf has pointed out, tex/latex has a size of 16Mbyte, while 94Mbyte
of the total of 135 Mbyte (without doc) are in the fonts directory.
Therefore it seems that it doesn't help much to figure out which LaTeX
packages are needed in this new base package.  Instead, we include in it

- the complete tex/latex directory,=20

- everything else that is needed to run LaTeX

- input files for makeindex and bibtex.  I'm not sure about all those
  bst files.

- PSNFSS fonts, the CM and EC fonts in Metafont and Type1 format, if
  available.

This should be enough to build packages using texinfo or sgml-to-LaTeX
converters (or other frequently used something-to-LaTeX converters).
tetex-extra gets all the rest.

In case we end up implementing the advanced scheme for both source
packages, we also need to think about dependencies - I think in this
case tetex-bin-extra should *depend* on tetex-extra, so that people
won't end up with texexec but no context input files, and similar
situations.=20=20

Maybe we should also rename tetex-base (e.g. to tetex-latexbase), but on
the other hand I don't expect that many packages that depend on
tetex-base only would stop working; the harder part would be to convince
package maintainers to drop the tetex-extra dependency.

In any case, I suggest that tetex-base should create a tetex-complete
package that installs everything (maybe except the X11 fonts).=20=20


4. timeline
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Quoting Adrian Bunk:

       THE RIGHT TIME FOR SUCH A SPLIT IS SOON AFTER A RELEASE.

(No, he didn't shout so loud, that's me.)=20

Now is the time for discussion and to speak up when something is so
important to you that you are offering to spend time on it.  Please
speak up if you agree or disagree, or if you want to propose something
different.=20

If you like, we can start coding at once, using a branch in the svn
repository.  An upload to unstable should not happen until the teTeX-3.0
packages in their current state have stabilized in unstable, and we are
no longer busy fixing other people's bugs (like xmltex, and for sure
some documentation-related FTBFS bugs).


Regards, Frank

[1] http://www.de.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#subscribe

--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer





<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>tetex-bin split &lt;100332@bugs.debian.org&gt;,        tetex-base split &lt;302035@bugs.debian.org&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>teTeX maintainers &lt;debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org&gt;</code>.


-t

X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,        tetex-base split <302035@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Bug#78926: Info received (was New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian)
Message-ID: <handler.78926.B78926.11301365947940.ackinfo@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <87pspzaqra.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
References: <87pspzaqra.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
Precedence: bulk
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info 78926
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 

Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report.  It has been forwarded to the package maintainer(s)
and to other interested parties to accompany the original report.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>

If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 78926@bugs.debian.org, as before.

Please do not reply to the address at the top of this message,
unless you wish to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)



Received: (at 78926) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Oct 2005 06:49:54 +0000
From frank@kuesterei.ch Sun Oct 23 23:49:54 2005
Return-path: <frank@kuesterei.ch>
Received: from idmailgate2.unizh.ch [130.60.127.101] 
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
	id 1ETw9Z-00022l-00; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:49:54 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([130.60.169.166])
	by idmailgate2.unizh.ch (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j9O6nVJP026991;
	Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:49:49 +0200
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost.localdomain ident=frank)
	by localhost.localdomain with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1ESxsh-0001BP-Co; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:27 +0200
To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,
        tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
Mail-Followup-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>, tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian
Reply-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,
        tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:25 +0200
Message-ID: <87pspzaqra.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
Delivered-To: 78926@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_30 autolearn=no 
	version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 8


Dear all,

there are a lot of requests for a more clever splitting of tetex-base,
-bin, and -extra in the BTS.  Now that we are early in the release cycle
of etch, and teTeX-3.0 is finally in unstable, I want to approach the
question of splitting.

This mail goes to all the bugs that refer to splitting, and (via Blind
Cc) to all submitters (and some other related parties who have in the
past expressed interest in the topic).  Followups should go *only* to
the bugs in the To: field, this will reach me and the Co-maintainers.
Please restrict yourself to one of them if your answer only affects one
of the packages; tetex-extra is built from the same sources as base.

Submitters, if you are interested in further discussion, please
subscribe[1] to (one of ) the bugs in the To field (or the
debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org mailing list).



In the following, I will try to

1. summarize the requests we have received and their motivation

2. propose some guidelines for splitting

3. propose some possible splitting schemes.

4. timeline

Here we go:

1. Summary of the requests we have received and their motivation
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
   (plus some comments in [])


regarding tetex-bin

a) #78926: If possible, it'd be nice if dvips were a seperate package, so t=
hat users
   of printfilters, e.g., don't need tetex-bin installed.

   [is this really a realistic scenario?  How many systems are there that
   print dvi, but don't produce it?]

b) #100332: please move xdvi to its own package
   Motivation:  This would save lots of packages that build documentation
   with TeX the indirect build-dependency on xlibs
=20
   [maybe not so grave any more since xlibs are modularized, but
   generally a worthwile goal]
=20
c) #223728, #223734: tetex-bin needn't depend on xlibs (and split of stuff
   depending on perl-tk, and corresponding patch for tetex-base)

   Additional motivation:  allow (pdf)tex to be run on production
   machines without X installed.=20
=20
regarding tetex-base
=20
d) #302035: PSNFSS is a required part of LaTeX
   Motivation: tetex-base should contain everything that is part of core
   LaTeX=20
=20
e) #324868: Move Bluesky fonts to tetex-base
   Motivation: tetex-base should be sufficient for basic document
   processing, and today this means to be able to produce PDF files with
   Type1 fonts (which Bluesky provides at least for english)
=20
   [Along these lines, we should consider to move often used LaTeX
   packages to -base]
=20
f) #32260, #35892: Split tetex-extra to minimize disk space requirements, a=
nd
   allow bibtex (and other programs in -bin) to run sensibly with only
   -base installed.
=20
   [this is an understandable wish for bibtex, but not necessarily
   sensible for exotic engines like omega, aleph, ...]
=20
g) #51869: Like before, but discusses the issue of splitting tetex-doc
   off, or alternatively having smaller junks with the respective docs
   included.=20
=20
h) #278901: Like before, but focuses on the regular download size in
   unstable, which could only be reduced by an artificial splitting of
   the *source* package.  This is a different topic, we are *not*
   discussing this here.
=20
i) #327480: Please separate the .pfb files of Type1 fonts and make them
   available to X11=20
=20
   [partly resolved since CM fonts are available as TrueType for X11;
   still valid for other fonts]


2. guidelines for splitting
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Etch will (if nothing very surprising happens) come with two alternative
TeX systems: teTeX and TeX-Live.  TeX-Live is not only much bigger and
more comprehensive, it is also much more fine-grained.  This will allow
users to install only the specific subset they need.  Therefore, I think
we can refer people concerned with download size or disk space to using
TeX-live and simply not care about this problem;  teTeX is then for
everyone who wants a standard collection of things without bothering
about disk space, or about selecting from a large list.

This effectively resolves bugs f, g, and h, except that we should
consider the aspect of splitting doc files.

I expect that teTeX will continue to be the standard package for
creating documentation when building a Debian package, and I think that
we should try to develop our splitting schemes mainly along the needs of
this application.  End users will probably just install everything, or
switch to tex-live.

From this, I find the following guidelines:

1. do not bloat indirect build-deps

2. provide a tetex-base that is sufficient for most generated tex-files
   (by debiandoc-sgml, linuxdoc, texinfo, or similar approaches)

3. do not include unnecessary stuff in the basic packages needed for
   most build-deps


3. Some possible splitting schemes
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

For each of tetex-base and tetex-bin, I see two possible splitting
schemes - one that would fulfill minimal requirements, the other
"better" but more difficult and more work.

3.1 tetex-bin

- To me it seems that splitting of dvips (a) will gain us hardly
  anything, and most users will install it anyway; currently the same is
  true for build-depending packages, although more might switch to
  direct pdf generation later.

- Splitting off things that depend on xlibs and/or perl-tk seems to make
  sense, even with modular xlibs.

- I don't think, however, that splitting off things that depend
  on perl generally is worthwile; because of dpkg-dev perl is
  build-essential, anyway.  Similarly, the new ConTeXt scripts written
  in Ruby deserve a Suggests: ruby, but not a splitting.=20

- All binaries in /usr/bin make up to 6.5Mbyte; xdvi.real and mf (the
  ones that depend on xlibs) are 764K.  From the remaining 5.75MByte,
  4.7 are from big binaries with sizes >=3D 100Kbyte, but in fact most
  build-depending packages only need pdfetex, mf(-nowin) and dvips,
  together 1.3Mbyte (all numbers are from teTeX-3.0), plust many of the
  small executables.

Thus, we get=20

* minimal scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tetex-bin is split into tetex-bin-nox and tetex-bin-x11; tetex-bin
continues to exist as a dummy package.  Besides sorting files with dh_*
and writing the necessary control information, the only thing we have to
do is connected to mf: we probably need to set up an alternatives system
for mf-nowin and mfw.

* advanced scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Additionally, tetex-bin-nox is split into tetex-bin-mini and
tetex-bin-extra (or similar), where tetex-bin-mini contains only
pdfetex, mf-nowin and dvips plus the needed scripts/binaries smaller
than 100K.  This would require more work, because finding out which
small programs are needed isn't trivial.

* for tetex-bin, I would also find it acceptable to not split it
  further.=20



3.2 tetex-base

For tetex-base, the additional splitting-off of a type1-fonts-x11
package can be added to both following splitting schemes:

* minimal scheme
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just move PSNFSS and the Bluesky fonts to tetex-base (e and d, #324868,
#302035) and be done.=20=20

* advanced scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alternatively, we could create a tetex-base that is in fact a
latex-base:=20

As Ralf has pointed out, tex/latex has a size of 16Mbyte, while 94Mbyte
of the total of 135 Mbyte (without doc) are in the fonts directory.
Therefore it seems that it doesn't help much to figure out which LaTeX
packages are needed in this new base package.  Instead, we include in it

- the complete tex/latex directory,=20

- everything else that is needed to run LaTeX

- input files for makeindex and bibtex.  I'm not sure about all those
  bst files.

- PSNFSS fonts, the CM and EC fonts in Metafont and Type1 format, if
  available.

This should be enough to build packages using texinfo or sgml-to-LaTeX
converters (or other frequently used something-to-LaTeX converters).
tetex-extra gets all the rest.

In case we end up implementing the advanced scheme for both source
packages, we also need to think about dependencies - I think in this
case tetex-bin-extra should *depend* on tetex-extra, so that people
won't end up with texexec but no context input files, and similar
situations.=20=20

Maybe we should also rename tetex-base (e.g. to tetex-latexbase), but on
the other hand I don't expect that many packages that depend on
tetex-base only would stop working; the harder part would be to convince
package maintainers to drop the tetex-extra dependency.

In any case, I suggest that tetex-base should create a tetex-complete
package that installs everything (maybe except the X11 fonts).=20=20


4. timeline
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Quoting Adrian Bunk:

       THE RIGHT TIME FOR SUCH A SPLIT IS SOON AFTER A RELEASE.

(No, he didn't shout so loud, that's me.)=20

Now is the time for discussion and to speak up when something is so
important to you that you are offering to spend time on it.  Please
speak up if you agree or disagree, or if you want to propose something
different.=20

If you like, we can start coding at once, using a branch in the svn
repository.  An upload to unstable should not happen until the teTeX-3.0
packages in their current state have stabilized in unstable, and we are
no longer busy fixing other people's bugs (like xmltex, and for sure
some documentation-related FTBFS bugs).


Regards, Frank

[1] http://www.de.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#subscribe

--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer





<strong>Message sent on</strong> to <code>Chad Miller &lt;cmiller@surfsouth.com&gt;</code>:<br>
Bug#78926.


Chad Miller <cmiller@surfsouth.com>

X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#78926: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian
Reply-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,        tetex-base split <302035@bugs.debian.org>, 78926-quiet@bugs.debian.org
Resent-To: Chad Miller <cmiller@surfsouth.com>
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:03:38 UTC
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.78926.U78926.11301365958028@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 78926
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
Received: via spool by 78926-submitter@bugs.debian.org id=U78926.11301365958028
          (code U ref 78926); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:03:38 UTC
Received: (at 78926-submitter) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Oct 2005 06:49:55 +0000
Received: from idmailgate2.unizh.ch [130.60.127.101] 
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
	id 1ETw9Z-00022l-00; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:49:54 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([130.60.169.166])
	by idmailgate2.unizh.ch (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j9O6nVJP026991;
	Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:49:49 +0200
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost.localdomain ident=frank)
	by localhost.localdomain with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1ESxsh-0001BP-Co; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:27 +0200
To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,
        tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
Mail-Followup-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>, tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
From: Frank =?UTF-8?Q?K=C3=BCster?= <frank@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:25 +0200
Message-ID: <87pspzaqra.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
Delivered-To: 78926-submitter@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_30 autolearn=no 
	version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 20


Dear all,

there are a lot of requests for a more clever splitting of tetex-base,
-bin, and -extra in the BTS.  Now that we are early in the release cycle
of etch, and teTeX-3.0 is finally in unstable, I want to approach the
question of splitting.

This mail goes to all the bugs that refer to splitting, and (via Blind
Cc) to all submitters (and some other related parties who have in the
past expressed interest in the topic).  Followups should go *only* to
the bugs in the To: field, this will reach me and the Co-maintainers.
Please restrict yourself to one of them if your answer only affects one
of the packages; tetex-extra is built from the same sources as base.

Submitters, if you are interested in further discussion, please
subscribe[1] to (one of ) the bugs in the To field (or the
debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org mailing list).



In the following, I will try to

1. summarize the requests we have received and their motivation

2. propose some guidelines for splitting

3. propose some possible splitting schemes.

4. timeline

Here we go:

1. Summary of the requests we have received and their motivation
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
   (plus some comments in [])


regarding tetex-bin

a) #78926: If possible, it'd be nice if dvips were a seperate package, so t=
hat users
   of printfilters, e.g., don't need tetex-bin installed.

   [is this really a realistic scenario?  How many systems are there that
   print dvi, but don't produce it?]

b) #100332: please move xdvi to its own package
   Motivation:  This would save lots of packages that build documentation
   with TeX the indirect build-dependency on xlibs
=20
   [maybe not so grave any more since xlibs are modularized, but
   generally a worthwile goal]
=20
c) #223728, #223734: tetex-bin needn't depend on xlibs (and split of stuff
   depending on perl-tk, and corresponding patch for tetex-base)

   Additional motivation:  allow (pdf)tex to be run on production
   machines without X installed.=20
=20
regarding tetex-base
=20
d) #302035: PSNFSS is a required part of LaTeX
   Motivation: tetex-base should contain everything that is part of core
   LaTeX=20
=20
e) #324868: Move Bluesky fonts to tetex-base
   Motivation: tetex-base should be sufficient for basic document
   processing, and today this means to be able to produce PDF files with
   Type1 fonts (which Bluesky provides at least for english)
=20
   [Along these lines, we should consider to move often used LaTeX
   packages to -base]
=20
f) #32260, #35892: Split tetex-extra to minimize disk space requirements, a=
nd
   allow bibtex (and other programs in -bin) to run sensibly with only
   -base installed.
=20
   [this is an understandable wish for bibtex, but not necessarily
   sensible for exotic engines like omega, aleph, ...]
=20
g) #51869: Like before, but discusses the issue of splitting tetex-doc
   off, or alternatively having smaller junks with the respective docs
   included.=20
=20
h) #278901: Like before, but focuses on the regular download size in
   unstable, which could only be reduced by an artificial splitting of
   the *source* package.  This is a different topic, we are *not*
   discussing this here.
=20
i) #327480: Please separate the .pfb files of Type1 fonts and make them
   available to X11=20
=20
   [partly resolved since CM fonts are available as TrueType for X11;
   still valid for other fonts]


2. guidelines for splitting
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Etch will (if nothing very surprising happens) come with two alternative
TeX systems: teTeX and TeX-Live.  TeX-Live is not only much bigger and
more comprehensive, it is also much more fine-grained.  This will allow
users to install only the specific subset they need.  Therefore, I think
we can refer people concerned with download size or disk space to using
TeX-live and simply not care about this problem;  teTeX is then for
everyone who wants a standard collection of things without bothering
about disk space, or about selecting from a large list.

This effectively resolves bugs f, g, and h, except that we should
consider the aspect of splitting doc files.

I expect that teTeX will continue to be the standard package for
creating documentation when building a Debian package, and I think that
we should try to develop our splitting schemes mainly along the needs of
this application.  End users will probably just install everything, or
switch to tex-live.

From this, I find the following guidelines:

1. do not bloat indirect build-deps

2. provide a tetex-base that is sufficient for most generated tex-files
   (by debiandoc-sgml, linuxdoc, texinfo, or similar approaches)

3. do not include unnecessary stuff in the basic packages needed for
   most build-deps


3. Some possible splitting schemes
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

For each of tetex-base and tetex-bin, I see two possible splitting
schemes - one that would fulfill minimal requirements, the other
"better" but more difficult and more work.

3.1 tetex-bin

- To me it seems that splitting of dvips (a) will gain us hardly
  anything, and most users will install it anyway; currently the same is
  true for build-depending packages, although more might switch to
  direct pdf generation later.

- Splitting off things that depend on xlibs and/or perl-tk seems to make
  sense, even with modular xlibs.

- I don't think, however, that splitting off things that depend
  on perl generally is worthwile; because of dpkg-dev perl is
  build-essential, anyway.  Similarly, the new ConTeXt scripts written
  in Ruby deserve a Suggests: ruby, but not a splitting.=20

- All binaries in /usr/bin make up to 6.5Mbyte; xdvi.real and mf (the
  ones that depend on xlibs) are 764K.  From the remaining 5.75MByte,
  4.7 are from big binaries with sizes >=3D 100Kbyte, but in fact most
  build-depending packages only need pdfetex, mf(-nowin) and dvips,
  together 1.3Mbyte (all numbers are from teTeX-3.0), plust many of the
  small executables.

Thus, we get=20

* minimal scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tetex-bin is split into tetex-bin-nox and tetex-bin-x11; tetex-bin
continues to exist as a dummy package.  Besides sorting files with dh_*
and writing the necessary control information, the only thing we have to
do is connected to mf: we probably need to set up an alternatives system
for mf-nowin and mfw.

* advanced scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Additionally, tetex-bin-nox is split into tetex-bin-mini and
tetex-bin-extra (or similar), where tetex-bin-mini contains only
pdfetex, mf-nowin and dvips plus the needed scripts/binaries smaller
than 100K.  This would require more work, because finding out which
small programs are needed isn't trivial.

* for tetex-bin, I would also find it acceptable to not split it
  further.=20



3.2 tetex-base

For tetex-base, the additional splitting-off of a type1-fonts-x11
package can be added to both following splitting schemes:

* minimal scheme
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just move PSNFSS and the Bluesky fonts to tetex-base (e and d, #324868,
#302035) and be done.=20=20

* advanced scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alternatively, we could create a tetex-base that is in fact a
latex-base:=20

As Ralf has pointed out, tex/latex has a size of 16Mbyte, while 94Mbyte
of the total of 135 Mbyte (without doc) are in the fonts directory.
Therefore it seems that it doesn't help much to figure out which LaTeX
packages are needed in this new base package.  Instead, we include in it

- the complete tex/latex directory,=20

- everything else that is needed to run LaTeX

- input files for makeindex and bibtex.  I'm not sure about all those
  bst files.

- PSNFSS fonts, the CM and EC fonts in Metafont and Type1 format, if
  available.

This should be enough to build packages using texinfo or sgml-to-LaTeX
converters (or other frequently used something-to-LaTeX converters).
tetex-extra gets all the rest.

In case we end up implementing the advanced scheme for both source
packages, we also need to think about dependencies - I think in this
case tetex-bin-extra should *depend* on tetex-extra, so that people
won't end up with texexec but no context input files, and similar
situations.=20=20

Maybe we should also rename tetex-base (e.g. to tetex-latexbase), but on
the other hand I don't expect that many packages that depend on
tetex-base only would stop working; the harder part would be to convince
package maintainers to drop the tetex-extra dependency.

In any case, I suggest that tetex-base should create a tetex-complete
package that installs everything (maybe except the X11 fonts).=20=20


4. timeline
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Quoting Adrian Bunk:

       THE RIGHT TIME FOR SUCH A SPLIT IS SOON AFTER A RELEASE.

(No, he didn't shout so loud, that's me.)=20

Now is the time for discussion and to speak up when something is so
important to you that you are offering to spend time on it.  Please
speak up if you agree or disagree, or if you want to propose something
different.=20

If you like, we can start coding at once, using a branch in the svn
repository.  An upload to unstable should not happen until the teTeX-3.0
packages in their current state have stabilized in unstable, and we are
no longer busy fixing other people's bugs (like xmltex, and for sure
some documentation-related FTBFS bugs).


Regards, Frank

[1] http://www.de.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#subscribe

--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer





Received: (at 78926-submitter) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Oct 2005 06:49:55 +0000
From frank@kuesterei.ch Sun Oct 23 23:49:55 2005
Return-path: <frank@kuesterei.ch>
Received: from idmailgate2.unizh.ch [130.60.127.101] 
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
	id 1ETw9Z-00022l-00; Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:49:54 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([130.60.169.166])
	by idmailgate2.unizh.ch (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j9O6nVJP026991;
	Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:49:49 +0200
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=localhost.localdomain ident=frank)
	by localhost.localdomain with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1ESxsh-0001BP-Co; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:27 +0200
To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,
        tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
Mail-Followup-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>, tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian
Reply-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>,
        tetex-base split
 <302035@bugs.debian.org>
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:28:25 +0200
Message-ID: <87pspzaqra.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
Delivered-To: 78926-submitter@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_30 autolearn=no 
	version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 20


Dear all,

there are a lot of requests for a more clever splitting of tetex-base,
-bin, and -extra in the BTS.  Now that we are early in the release cycle
of etch, and teTeX-3.0 is finally in unstable, I want to approach the
question of splitting.

This mail goes to all the bugs that refer to splitting, and (via Blind
Cc) to all submitters (and some other related parties who have in the
past expressed interest in the topic).  Followups should go *only* to
the bugs in the To: field, this will reach me and the Co-maintainers.
Please restrict yourself to one of them if your answer only affects one
of the packages; tetex-extra is built from the same sources as base.

Submitters, if you are interested in further discussion, please
subscribe[1] to (one of ) the bugs in the To field (or the
debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org mailing list).



In the following, I will try to

1. summarize the requests we have received and their motivation

2. propose some guidelines for splitting

3. propose some possible splitting schemes.

4. timeline

Here we go:

1. Summary of the requests we have received and their motivation
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
   (plus some comments in [])


regarding tetex-bin

a) #78926: If possible, it'd be nice if dvips were a seperate package, so t=
hat users
   of printfilters, e.g., don't need tetex-bin installed.

   [is this really a realistic scenario?  How many systems are there that
   print dvi, but don't produce it?]

b) #100332: please move xdvi to its own package
   Motivation:  This would save lots of packages that build documentation
   with TeX the indirect build-dependency on xlibs
=20
   [maybe not so grave any more since xlibs are modularized, but
   generally a worthwile goal]
=20
c) #223728, #223734: tetex-bin needn't depend on xlibs (and split of stuff
   depending on perl-tk, and corresponding patch for tetex-base)

   Additional motivation:  allow (pdf)tex to be run on production
   machines without X installed.=20
=20
regarding tetex-base
=20
d) #302035: PSNFSS is a required part of LaTeX
   Motivation: tetex-base should contain everything that is part of core
   LaTeX=20
=20
e) #324868: Move Bluesky fonts to tetex-base
   Motivation: tetex-base should be sufficient for basic document
   processing, and today this means to be able to produce PDF files with
   Type1 fonts (which Bluesky provides at least for english)
=20
   [Along these lines, we should consider to move often used LaTeX
   packages to -base]
=20
f) #32260, #35892: Split tetex-extra to minimize disk space requirements, a=
nd
   allow bibtex (and other programs in -bin) to run sensibly with only
   -base installed.
=20
   [this is an understandable wish for bibtex, but not necessarily
   sensible for exotic engines like omega, aleph, ...]
=20
g) #51869: Like before, but discusses the issue of splitting tetex-doc
   off, or alternatively having smaller junks with the respective docs
   included.=20
=20
h) #278901: Like before, but focuses on the regular download size in
   unstable, which could only be reduced by an artificial splitting of
   the *source* package.  This is a different topic, we are *not*
   discussing this here.
=20
i) #327480: Please separate the .pfb files of Type1 fonts and make them
   available to X11=20
=20
   [partly resolved since CM fonts are available as TrueType for X11;
   still valid for other fonts]


2. guidelines for splitting
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Etch will (if nothing very surprising happens) come with two alternative
TeX systems: teTeX and TeX-Live.  TeX-Live is not only much bigger and
more comprehensive, it is also much more fine-grained.  This will allow
users to install only the specific subset they need.  Therefore, I think
we can refer people concerned with download size or disk space to using
TeX-live and simply not care about this problem;  teTeX is then for
everyone who wants a standard collection of things without bothering
about disk space, or about selecting from a large list.

This effectively resolves bugs f, g, and h, except that we should
consider the aspect of splitting doc files.

I expect that teTeX will continue to be the standard package for
creating documentation when building a Debian package, and I think that
we should try to develop our splitting schemes mainly along the needs of
this application.  End users will probably just install everything, or
switch to tex-live.

From this, I find the following guidelines:

1. do not bloat indirect build-deps

2. provide a tetex-base that is sufficient for most generated tex-files
   (by debiandoc-sgml, linuxdoc, texinfo, or similar approaches)

3. do not include unnecessary stuff in the basic packages needed for
   most build-deps


3. Some possible splitting schemes
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

For each of tetex-base and tetex-bin, I see two possible splitting
schemes - one that would fulfill minimal requirements, the other
"better" but more difficult and more work.

3.1 tetex-bin

- To me it seems that splitting of dvips (a) will gain us hardly
  anything, and most users will install it anyway; currently the same is
  true for build-depending packages, although more might switch to
  direct pdf generation later.

- Splitting off things that depend on xlibs and/or perl-tk seems to make
  sense, even with modular xlibs.

- I don't think, however, that splitting off things that depend
  on perl generally is worthwile; because of dpkg-dev perl is
  build-essential, anyway.  Similarly, the new ConTeXt scripts written
  in Ruby deserve a Suggests: ruby, but not a splitting.=20

- All binaries in /usr/bin make up to 6.5Mbyte; xdvi.real and mf (the
  ones that depend on xlibs) are 764K.  From the remaining 5.75MByte,
  4.7 are from big binaries with sizes >=3D 100Kbyte, but in fact most
  build-depending packages only need pdfetex, mf(-nowin) and dvips,
  together 1.3Mbyte (all numbers are from teTeX-3.0), plust many of the
  small executables.

Thus, we get=20

* minimal scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
tetex-bin is split into tetex-bin-nox and tetex-bin-x11; tetex-bin
continues to exist as a dummy package.  Besides sorting files with dh_*
and writing the necessary control information, the only thing we have to
do is connected to mf: we probably need to set up an alternatives system
for mf-nowin and mfw.

* advanced scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Additionally, tetex-bin-nox is split into tetex-bin-mini and
tetex-bin-extra (or similar), where tetex-bin-mini contains only
pdfetex, mf-nowin and dvips plus the needed scripts/binaries smaller
than 100K.  This would require more work, because finding out which
small programs are needed isn't trivial.

* for tetex-bin, I would also find it acceptable to not split it
  further.=20



3.2 tetex-base

For tetex-base, the additional splitting-off of a type1-fonts-x11
package can be added to both following splitting schemes:

* minimal scheme
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just move PSNFSS and the Bluesky fonts to tetex-base (e and d, #324868,
#302035) and be done.=20=20

* advanced scheme
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Alternatively, we could create a tetex-base that is in fact a
latex-base:=20

As Ralf has pointed out, tex/latex has a size of 16Mbyte, while 94Mbyte
of the total of 135 Mbyte (without doc) are in the fonts directory.
Therefore it seems that it doesn't help much to figure out which LaTeX
packages are needed in this new base package.  Instead, we include in it

- the complete tex/latex directory,=20

- everything else that is needed to run LaTeX

- input files for makeindex and bibtex.  I'm not sure about all those
  bst files.

- PSNFSS fonts, the CM and EC fonts in Metafont and Type1 format, if
  available.

This should be enough to build packages using texinfo or sgml-to-LaTeX
converters (or other frequently used something-to-LaTeX converters).
tetex-extra gets all the rest.

In case we end up implementing the advanced scheme for both source
packages, we also need to think about dependencies - I think in this
case tetex-bin-extra should *depend* on tetex-extra, so that people
won't end up with texexec but no context input files, and similar
situations.=20=20

Maybe we should also rename tetex-base (e.g. to tetex-latexbase), but on
the other hand I don't expect that many packages that depend on
tetex-base only would stop working; the harder part would be to convince
package maintainers to drop the tetex-extra dependency.

In any case, I suggest that tetex-base should create a tetex-complete
package that installs everything (maybe except the X11 fonts).=20=20


4. timeline
   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Quoting Adrian Bunk:

       THE RIGHT TIME FOR SUCH A SPLIT IS SOON AFTER A RELEASE.

(No, he didn't shout so loud, that's me.)=20

Now is the time for discussion and to speak up when something is so
important to you that you are offering to spend time on it.  Please
speak up if you agree or disagree, or if you want to propose something
different.=20

If you like, we can start coding at once, using a branch in the svn
repository.  An upload to unstable should not happen until the teTeX-3.0
packages in their current state have stabilized in unstable, and we are
no longer busy fixing other people's bugs (like xmltex, and for sure
some documentation-related FTBFS bugs).


Regards, Frank

[1] http://www.de.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#subscribe

--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer





<strong>Information forwarded</strong> to <code>debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, Debian TeX Maintainers &lt;debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org&gt;</code>:<br>
<code>Bug#78926</code>; Package <code>tetex-bin</code>.


debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgDebian TeX Maintainers <debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org>

X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#78926: Du hast noch mehr SpaB beim x ..
Reply-To: "Forrest Self" <fnsgaslgw@bm.com>, 78926@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: "Forrest Self" <fnsgaslgw@bm.com>
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: Debian TeX Maintainers <debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Resent-Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:58:42 +0000
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.78926.B78926.12205470915144@bugs.debian.org>
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: followup 78926
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: 
X-Debian-PR-Source: texlive-base
Received: via spool by 78926-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B78926.12205470915144
          (code B ref 78926); Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:58:42 +0000
Received: (at 78926) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Sep 2008 16:51:31 +0000
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2007-08-08) on rietz.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=4.0 tests=NEXTPART autolearn=no
	version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Received: from [88.251.237.128]
	by rietz.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <fnsgaslgw@bm.com>)
	id 1KbI3M-0000h8-PE; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:51:29 +0000
Received: from [88.251.237.128] by mail.global.sprint.com; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:51:27 +0200
From: "Forrest Self" <fnsgaslgw@bm.com>
To: <77930@bugs.debian.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:51:27 +0200
Message-ID: <01c90ebf$3c4d2180$80edfb58@fnsgaslgw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C90EBF.3C4D2180"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Importance: Normal
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C90EBF.3C4D2180
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mein Kumpel hat es ausprobiert: Original Vi rezf im Internet bestellen ist ganz einfach und ja seitdem er Vi nimmt, ist seine Frau wieder richtig zufrieden mit ihm.http://describerich.com

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C90EBF.3C4D2180
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-mi=
crosoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:wo=
rd" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows=
-1252">


<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:filelist.xml@8670C721.53B4F05A">
<link rel=3DEdit-Time-Data href=3D"cid:editdata.mso@8670C721.53B4F05A">
</head>
<body>
Mein Kumpel hat es ausprobiert: Original Vi rezf im Internet bestellen is=
t ganz einfach und ja seitdem er Vi nimmt, ist seine Frau wieder richtig =
zufrieden mit ihm.
<p></p>
<strong><a href=3D"http://describerich.com">http://describerich.com</a></=
strong>
</body>
</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C90EBF.3C4D2180--







<strong>Acknowledgement sent</strong> to <code>&quot;Forrest Self&quot; &lt;fnsgaslgw@bm.com&gt;</code>:<br>
Extra info received and forwarded to list.  Copy sent to <code>Debian TeX Maintainers &lt;debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org&gt;</code>.


-t

Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.420 (Entity 5.420)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: "Forrest Self" <fnsgaslgw@bm.com>
Subject: Bug#78926: Info received (Du hast noch mehr SpaB beim x ..)
Message-ID: <handler.78926.B78926.12205470915144.ackinfo@bugs.debian.org>
References: <01c90ebf$3c4d2180$80edfb58@fnsgaslgw>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info 78926
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Source: texlive-base
Reply-To: 78926@bugs.debian.org


Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this Bug report.

This is an automatically generated reply to let you know your message
has been received.

Your message is being forwarded to the package maintainers and other
interested parties for their attention; they will reply in due course.

Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
 Debian TeX Maintainers <debian-tex-maint@lists.debian.org>

If you wish to submit further information on this problem, please
send it to 78926@bugs.debian.org, as before.

Please do not send mail to owner@bugs.debian.org unless you wish
to report a problem with the Bug-tracking system.


--=20
78926: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D78926
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems



Received: (at 78926) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Sep 2008 16:51:31 +0000
From fnsgaslgw@bm.com Thu Sep 04 16:51:31 2008
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
	(2007-08-08) on rietz.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=4.0 tests=NEXTPART autolearn=no
	version=3.2.3-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
Return-path: <fnsgaslgw@bm.com>
Received: from [88.251.237.128]
	by rietz.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63)
	(envelope-from <fnsgaslgw@bm.com>)
	id 1KbI3M-0000h8-PE; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:51:29 +0000
Received: from [88.251.237.128] by mail.global.sprint.com; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:51:27 +0200
From: "Forrest Self" <fnsgaslgw@bm.com>
To: <77930@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Du hast noch mehr SpaB beim x ..
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:51:27 +0200
Message-ID: <01c90ebf$3c4d2180$80edfb58@fnsgaslgw>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C90EBF.3C4D2180"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Importance: Normal
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 2

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C90EBF.3C4D2180
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Mein Kumpel hat es ausprobiert: Original Vi rezf im Internet bestellen ist ganz einfach und ja seitdem er Vi nimmt, ist seine Frau wieder richtig zufrieden mit ihm.http://describerich.com

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C90EBF.3C4D2180
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-mi=
crosoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:wo=
rd" xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; charset=3DWindows=
-1252">


<meta name=3DProgId content=3DWord.Document>
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<meta name=3DOriginator content=3D"Microsoft Word 10">
<link rel=3DFile-List href=3D"cid:filelist.xml@8670C721.53B4F05A">
<link rel=3DEdit-Time-Data href=3D"cid:editdata.mso@8670C721.53B4F05A">
</head>
<body>
Mein Kumpel hat es ausprobiert: Original Vi rezf im Internet bestellen is=
t ganz einfach und ja seitdem er Vi nimmt, ist seine Frau wieder richtig =
zufrieden mit ihm.
<p></p>
<strong><a href=3D"http://describerich.com">http://describerich.com</a></=
strong>
</body>
</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C90EBF.3C4D2180--