Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Ryan Murray , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Ryan Murray
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:48:09 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by submit@bugs.debian.org id=B.9921193445844
(code B ref -1); Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:48:09 GMT
Message-Id: <200106092042.NAA30419@straylight.cyberhqz.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: straylight.cyberhqz.com: Host rmurray@cyberhq [192.168.0.2] claimed to be cyberhq.internal.cyberhqz.com
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:42:17 -0700
From: Ryan Murray
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.9
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 1.0.7+20001218-4
Severity: wishlist
tetex-bin is commonly required to build documentation in several
Debian packages, and is a build-depends of them, including xfree86.
The problem is that with xdvi in the package, X indirectly
build-depends on itself. It would also means that many non-X packages
that use tetex-bin for building documentation have to install
xlibs-dev, even if they don't need them. If xdvi was in a seperate
package, this wouldn't be needed and would make buildong of these
packages faster on autobuilders that don't have xlibs-dev installed in
the chroot (most of them are this way, to my knowledge).
Acknowledgement sent to Ryan Murray <rmurray@cyberhqz.com>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Ryan Murray
Subject: Bug#100332: Acknowledgement (tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <200106092042.NAA30419@straylight.cyberhqz.com>
References: <200106092042.NAA30419@straylight.cyberhqz.com>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack 100332
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
If you wish to submit further information on your problem, please send
it to 100332@bugs.debian.org (and *not* to
submit@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; 9 Jun 2001 20:42:24 +0000
From rmurray@cyberhqz.com Sat Jun 09 15:42:24 2001
Return-path:
Received: from h24-78-251-235.vc.shawcable.net (straylight.cyberhqz.com) [::ffff:24.78.251.235]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 158pYu-0001Vy-00; Sat, 09 Jun 2001 15:42:24 -0500
Received: from cyberhq.internal.cyberhqz.com (rmurray@cyberhq [192.168.0.2])
by straylight.cyberhqz.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id NAA30419;
Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:42:17 -0700
Message-Id: <200106092042.NAA30419@straylight.cyberhqz.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: straylight.cyberhqz.com: Host rmurray@cyberhq [192.168.0.2] claimed to be cyberhq.internal.cyberhqz.com
Received: by cyberhq.internal.cyberhqz.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:42:17 -0700
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:42:17 -0700
From: Ryan Murray
Subject: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Mailer: bug 3.3.9
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 1.0.7+20001218-4
Severity: wishlist
tetex-bin is commonly required to build documentation in several
Debian packages, and is a build-depends of them, including xfree86.
The problem is that with xdvi in the package, X indirectly
build-depends on itself. It would also means that many non-X packages
that use tetex-bin for building documentation have to install
xlibs-dev, even if they don't need them. If xdvi was in a seperate
package, this wouldn't be needed and would make buildong of these
packages faster on autobuilders that don't have xlibs-dev installed in
the chroot (most of them are this way, to my knowledge).
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Julian Gilbey , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Julian Gilbey
Orignal-Sender: Julian Gilbey
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:03:33 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.99212774632201
(code B ref 100332); Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:03:33 GMT
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:59:54 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Ryan Murray , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Message-ID: <20010609235953.D9105@polya>
References: <200106092042.NAA30419@straylight.cyberhqz.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200106092042.NAA30419@straylight.cyberhqz.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote:
> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 1.0.7+20001218-4
> Severity: wishlist
>
> tetex-bin is commonly required to build documentation in several
> Debian packages, and is a build-depends of them, including xfree86.
> The problem is that with xdvi in the package, X indirectly
> build-depends on itself. It would also means that many non-X packages
> that use tetex-bin for building documentation have to install
> xlibs-dev, even if they don't need them. If xdvi was in a seperate
> package, this wouldn't be needed and would make buildong of these
> packages faster on autobuilders that don't have xlibs-dev installed in
> the chroot (most of them are this way, to my knowledge).
A better way might be to just Suggests: the xlibs package. (This can
be done using the -d option to dpkg-shlibdeps and doing xdvi
separately from the other binaries, something like:
dh_shlibdeps -X xdvi.bin -- -dSuggests -edebian/tmp/usr/bin/xdvi.bin
or similar.)
Then in the xdvi wrapper, check that the necessary library is
present.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Acknowledgement sent to Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Julian Gilbey
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <20010609235953.D9105@polya>
References: <20010609235953.D9105@polya>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jun 2001 23:02:25 +0000
From J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk Sat Jun 09 18:02:25 2001
Return-path:
Received: from mserv1e.vianw.co.uk [::ffff:195.102.240.97]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 158rkP-0008NC-00; Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:02:25 -0500
Received: from [195.102.196.33] (helo=polya)
by mserv1e.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
id 158rkI-0004od-00
for 100332@bugs.debian.org; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 00:02:19 +0100
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 158rhy-0002Qf-00; Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:59:54 +0100
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:59:54 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Ryan Murray , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Message-ID: <20010609235953.D9105@polya>
References: <200106092042.NAA30419@straylight.cyberhqz.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200106092042.NAA30419@straylight.cyberhqz.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Sat, Jun 09, 2001 at 01:42:17PM -0700, Ryan Murray wrote:
> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 1.0.7+20001218-4
> Severity: wishlist
>
> tetex-bin is commonly required to build documentation in several
> Debian packages, and is a build-depends of them, including xfree86.
> The problem is that with xdvi in the package, X indirectly
> build-depends on itself. It would also means that many non-X packages
> that use tetex-bin for building documentation have to install
> xlibs-dev, even if they don't need them. If xdvi was in a seperate
> package, this wouldn't be needed and would make buildong of these
> packages faster on autobuilders that don't have xlibs-dev installed in
> the chroot (most of them are this way, to my knowledge).
A better way might be to just Suggests: the xlibs package. (This can
be done using the -d option to dpkg-shlibdeps and doing xdvi
separately from the other binaries, something like:
dh_shlibdeps -X xdvi.bin -- -dSuggests -edebian/tmp/usr/bin/xdvi.bin
or similar.)
Then in the xdvi wrapper, check that the necessary library is
present.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Adrian Bunk , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Adrian Bunk
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:21:22 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.9921288654284
(code B ref 100332); Sat, 09 Jun 2001 23:21:22 GMT
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:21:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Adrian Bunk
X-X-Sender:
To: Julian Gilbey , <100332@bugs.debian.org>
cc: Ryan Murray
In-Reply-To: <20010609235953.D9105@polya>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > tetex-bin is commonly required to build documentation in several
> > Debian packages, and is a build-depends of them, including xfree86.
> > The problem is that with xdvi in the package, X indirectly
> > build-depends on itself. It would also means that many non-X packages
> > that use tetex-bin for building documentation have to install
> > xlibs-dev, even if they don't need them. If xdvi was in a seperate
> > package, this wouldn't be needed and would make buildong of these
> > packages faster on autobuilders that don't have xlibs-dev installed in
> > the chroot (most of them are this way, to my knowledge).
>
> A better way might be to just Suggests: the xlibs package. (This can
> be done using the -d option to dpkg-shlibdeps and doing xdvi
> separately from the other binaries, something like:
> dh_shlibdeps -X xdvi.bin -- -dSuggests -edebian/tmp/usr/bin/xdvi.bin
> or similar.)
>
> Then in the xdvi wrapper, check that the necessary library is
> present.
We are (hopefully) shortly before a freeze, so don't let us make such
changes. The splitting of the tetex-* packages is on our TODO list (but
delayed until woody is released).
To make it short:
tetex-bin in woody will continue to depend on xlibs.
This will change after woody is released.
End of discussion.
> Julian
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Adrian Bunk
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
References:
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jun 2001 23:21:05 +0000
From bunk@fs.tum.de Sat Jun 09 18:21:05 2001
Return-path:
Received: from nilpferd.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de [::ffff:129.187.176.79]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 158s2S-000172-00; Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:21:04 -0500
Received: (qmail 23287 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2001 23:21:02 -0000
Received: from mimas.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de (HELO mimas) (129.187.176.26)
by nilpferd.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de with SMTP; 9 Jun 2001 23:21:02 -0000
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 01:21:02 +0200 (CEST)
From: Adrian Bunk
X-X-Sender:
To: Julian Gilbey , <100332@bugs.debian.org>
cc: Ryan Murray
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
In-Reply-To: <20010609235953.D9105@polya>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > tetex-bin is commonly required to build documentation in several
> > Debian packages, and is a build-depends of them, including xfree86.
> > The problem is that with xdvi in the package, X indirectly
> > build-depends on itself. It would also means that many non-X packages
> > that use tetex-bin for building documentation have to install
> > xlibs-dev, even if they don't need them. If xdvi was in a seperate
> > package, this wouldn't be needed and would make buildong of these
> > packages faster on autobuilders that don't have xlibs-dev installed in
> > the chroot (most of them are this way, to my knowledge).
>
> A better way might be to just Suggests: the xlibs package. (This can
> be done using the -d option to dpkg-shlibdeps and doing xdvi
> separately from the other binaries, something like:
> dh_shlibdeps -X xdvi.bin -- -dSuggests -edebian/tmp/usr/bin/xdvi.bin
> or similar.)
>
> Then in the xdvi wrapper, check that the necessary library is
> present.
We are (hopefully) shortly before a freeze, so don't let us make such
changes. The splitting of the tetex-* packages is on our TODO list (but
delayed until woody is released).
To make it short:
tetex-bin in woody will continue to depend on xlibs.
This will change after woody is released.
End of discussion.
> Julian
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Julian Gilbey , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Julian Gilbey
Orignal-Sender: Julian Gilbey
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:11:01 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.99220943425247
(code B ref 100332); Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:11:01 GMT
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:42:45 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org, Ryan Murray
Message-ID: <20010610224244.B11527@polya>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 01:21:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > A better way might be to just Suggests: the xlibs package. (This can
> > be done using the -d option to dpkg-shlibdeps and doing xdvi
> > separately from the other binaries, something like:
> > dh_shlibdeps -X xdvi.bin -- -dSuggests -edebian/tmp/usr/bin/xdvi.bin
> > or similar.)
> >
> > Then in the xdvi wrapper, check that the necessary library is
> > present.
>
> We are (hopefully) shortly before a freeze, so don't let us make such
> changes. The splitting of the tetex-* packages is on our TODO list (but
> delayed until woody is released).
>
>
> To make it short:
>
> tetex-bin in woody will continue to depend on xlibs.
> This will change after woody is released.
> End of discussion.
We're at least 2-3 months away from tetex being frozen. My suggestion
is to remove the dependency on xlibs without splitting the package:
basically, anyone trying to use xdvi should be working under X
already, so will automatically have xlibs. The only issue might be
version skew. I wouldn't like to have xdvi in a package on its own;
that would be downright confusing.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Acknowledgement sent to Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Julian Gilbey
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <20010610224244.B11527@polya>
References: <20010610224244.B11527@polya>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Jun 2001 21:43:54 +0000
From J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk Sun Jun 10 16:43:54 2001
Return-path:
Received: from mserv1e.vianw.co.uk [::ffff:195.102.240.97]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159Czy-0006ZA-00; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:43:54 -0500
Received: from [195.102.197.228] (helo=polya)
by mserv1e.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
id 159Cys-0000Vl-00; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:42:46 +0100
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 159Cyr-00030Q-00; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:42:45 +0100
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:42:45 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org, Ryan Murray
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Message-ID: <20010610224244.B11527@polya>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 01:21:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > A better way might be to just Suggests: the xlibs package. (This can
> > be done using the -d option to dpkg-shlibdeps and doing xdvi
> > separately from the other binaries, something like:
> > dh_shlibdeps -X xdvi.bin -- -dSuggests -edebian/tmp/usr/bin/xdvi.bin
> > or similar.)
> >
> > Then in the xdvi wrapper, check that the necessary library is
> > present.
>
> We are (hopefully) shortly before a freeze, so don't let us make such
> changes. The splitting of the tetex-* packages is on our TODO list (but
> delayed until woody is released).
>
>
> To make it short:
>
> tetex-bin in woody will continue to depend on xlibs.
> This will change after woody is released.
> End of discussion.
We're at least 2-3 months away from tetex being frozen. My suggestion
is to remove the dependency on xlibs without splitting the package:
basically, anyone trying to use xdvi should be working under X
already, so will automatically have xlibs. The only issue might be
version skew. I wouldn't like to have xdvi in a package on its own;
that would be downright confusing.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Adrian Bunk , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Adrian Bunk
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:03:02 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.99221350010998
(code B ref 100332); Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:03:02 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:51:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Adrian Bunk
X-X-Sender:
To: Julian Gilbey , <100332@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010610224244.B11527@polya>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 01:21:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > A better way might be to just Suggests: the xlibs package. (This can
> > > be done using the -d option to dpkg-shlibdeps and doing xdvi
> > > separately from the other binaries, something like:
> > > dh_shlibdeps -X xdvi.bin -- -dSuggests -edebian/tmp/usr/bin/xdvi.bin
> > > or similar.)
> > >
> > > Then in the xdvi wrapper, check that the necessary library is
> > > present.
> >
> > We are (hopefully) shortly before a freeze, so don't let us make such
> > changes. The splitting of the tetex-* packages is on our TODO list (but
> > delayed until woody is released).
> >
> >
> > To make it short:
> >
> > tetex-bin in woody will continue to depend on xlibs.
> > This will change after woody is released.
> > End of discussion.
>
> We're at least 2-3 months away from tetex being frozen. My suggestion
> is to remove the dependency on xlibs without splitting the package:
> basically, anyone trying to use xdvi should be working under X
> already, so will automatically have xlibs. The only issue might be
> version skew. I wouldn't like to have xdvi in a package on its own;
> that would be downright confusing.
This solution is ugly as hell. I'm stricly against risking to break
anything only to hide the dependencies of xdvi (and oxdvi).
And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
> Julian
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Adrian Bunk
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
References:
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 10 Jun 2001 22:51:40 +0000
From bunk@fs.tum.de Sun Jun 10 17:51:40 2001
Return-path:
Received: from nilpferd.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de [::ffff:129.187.176.79]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159E3Y-0002rK-00; Sun, 10 Jun 2001 17:51:40 -0500
Received: (qmail 4874 invoked from network); 10 Jun 2001 22:51:24 -0000
Received: from mimas.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de (HELO mimas) (129.187.176.26)
by nilpferd.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de with SMTP; 10 Jun 2001 22:51:24 -0000
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 00:51:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Adrian Bunk
X-X-Sender:
To: Julian Gilbey , <100332@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
In-Reply-To: <20010610224244.B11527@polya>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 01:21:02AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > A better way might be to just Suggests: the xlibs package. (This can
> > > be done using the -d option to dpkg-shlibdeps and doing xdvi
> > > separately from the other binaries, something like:
> > > dh_shlibdeps -X xdvi.bin -- -dSuggests -edebian/tmp/usr/bin/xdvi.bin
> > > or similar.)
> > >
> > > Then in the xdvi wrapper, check that the necessary library is
> > > present.
> >
> > We are (hopefully) shortly before a freeze, so don't let us make such
> > changes. The splitting of the tetex-* packages is on our TODO list (but
> > delayed until woody is released).
> >
> >
> > To make it short:
> >
> > tetex-bin in woody will continue to depend on xlibs.
> > This will change after woody is released.
> > End of discussion.
>
> We're at least 2-3 months away from tetex being frozen. My suggestion
> is to remove the dependency on xlibs without splitting the package:
> basically, anyone trying to use xdvi should be working under X
> already, so will automatically have xlibs. The only issue might be
> version skew. I wouldn't like to have xdvi in a package on its own;
> that would be downright confusing.
This solution is ugly as hell. I'm stricly against risking to break
anything only to hide the dependencies of xdvi (and oxdvi).
And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
> Julian
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Julian Gilbey , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Julian Gilbey
Orignal-Sender: Julian Gilbey
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:18:10 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.99224699330058
(code B ref 100332); Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:18:10 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:08:41 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
Message-ID: <20010611090841.B13858@polya>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 12:51:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > We're at least 2-3 months away from tetex being frozen. My suggestion
> > is to remove the dependency on xlibs without splitting the package:
> > basically, anyone trying to use xdvi should be working under X
> > already, so will automatically have xlibs. The only issue might be
> > version skew. I wouldn't like to have xdvi in a package on its own;
> > that would be downright confusing.
>
> This solution is ugly as hell. I'm stricly against risking to break
> anything only to hide the dependencies of xdvi (and oxdvi).
Probably true. But the other possibility has to be thought about
quite carefully too: we don't want people to install tetex-bin only to
find that half the stuff they expect isn't there.
Here's a possibility I've thought of for when the package is split:
tetex-bin is a dummy package depending on tetex-bin-core,
tetex-bin-xdvi, tetex-bin-pdftex, tetex-bin-* etc. Then installing
tetex-bin gets you everything, but you can selectively remove bits of
it. That will probably solve all of the problems. Now why didn't I
think of this before?!
> And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
> 36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
tetex-bin is standard priority, xlibs is optional.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Acknowledgement sent to Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Julian Gilbey
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <20010611090841.B13858@polya>
References: <20010611090841.B13858@polya>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2001 08:09:53 +0000
From J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk Mon Jun 11 03:09:53 2001
Return-path:
Received: from mserv1e.vianw.co.uk [::ffff:195.102.240.97]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159Mll-0007oP-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 03:09:53 -0500
Received: from [195.102.196.82] (helo=polya)
by mserv1e.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
id 159Mkc-0004ll-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:08:43 +0100
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 159Mkb-0003mv-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:08:41 +0100
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 09:08:41 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Message-ID: <20010611090841.B13858@polya>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 12:51:17AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > We're at least 2-3 months away from tetex being frozen. My suggestion
> > is to remove the dependency on xlibs without splitting the package:
> > basically, anyone trying to use xdvi should be working under X
> > already, so will automatically have xlibs. The only issue might be
> > version skew. I wouldn't like to have xdvi in a package on its own;
> > that would be downright confusing.
>
> This solution is ugly as hell. I'm stricly against risking to break
> anything only to hide the dependencies of xdvi (and oxdvi).
Probably true. But the other possibility has to be thought about
quite carefully too: we don't want people to install tetex-bin only to
find that half the stuff they expect isn't there.
Here's a possibility I've thought of for when the package is split:
tetex-bin is a dummy package depending on tetex-bin-core,
tetex-bin-xdvi, tetex-bin-pdftex, tetex-bin-* etc. Then installing
tetex-bin gets you everything, but you can selectively remove bits of
it. That will probably solve all of the problems. Now why didn't I
think of this before?!
> And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
> 36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
tetex-bin is standard priority, xlibs is optional.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Adrian Bunk , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Adrian Bunk
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:18:19 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.99224709031390
(code B ref 100332); Mon, 11 Jun 2001 08:18:19 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:11:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Adrian Bunk
X-X-Sender:
To: Julian Gilbey
cc: <100332@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010611090841.B13858@polya>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>...
> > And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
> > 36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
>
> tetex-bin is standard priority, xlibs is optional.
tetex-bin is optional.
> Julian
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Adrian Bunk
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
References:
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2001 08:11:30 +0000
From bunk@fs.tum.de Mon Jun 11 03:11:30 2001
Return-path:
Received: from nilpferd.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de [::ffff:129.187.176.79]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159MnK-0008A6-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 03:11:30 -0500
Received: (qmail 25381 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 08:11:19 -0000
Received: from mimas.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de (HELO mimas) (129.187.176.26)
by nilpferd.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 08:11:19 -0000
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 10:11:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Adrian Bunk
X-X-Sender:
To: Julian Gilbey
cc: <100332@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
In-Reply-To: <20010611090841.B13858@polya>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>...
> > And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
> > 36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
>
> tetex-bin is standard priority, xlibs is optional.
tetex-bin is optional.
> Julian
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Julian Gilbey , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Julian Gilbey
Orignal-Sender: Julian Gilbey
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:48:16 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.9922595328220
(code B ref 100332); Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:48:16 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:37:38 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
Message-ID: <20010611123738.A15194@polya>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 10:11:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> >...
> > > And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
> > > 36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
> >
> > tetex-bin is standard priority, xlibs is optional.
>
> tetex-bin is optional.
Standard should include "a reasonable subset of TeX and LaTeX." So I
guess that when teTeX is split, this would be a good aim.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Acknowledgement sent to Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Julian Gilbey
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <20010611123738.A15194@polya>
References: <20010611123738.A15194@polya>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2001 11:38:52 +0000
From J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk Mon Jun 11 06:38:51 2001
Return-path:
Received: from mserv1d.vianw.co.uk [::ffff:195.102.240.96]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159Q1z-00028V-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 06:38:51 -0500
Received: from [195.102.196.34] (helo=polya)
by mserv1d.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
id 159Q0q-0006Lu-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:37:40 +0100
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 159Q0o-0003y2-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:37:38 +0100
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:37:38 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Message-ID: <20010611123738.A15194@polya>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 10:11:16AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
>
> >...
> > > And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
> > > 36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
> >
> > tetex-bin is standard priority, xlibs is optional.
>
> tetex-bin is optional.
Standard should include "a reasonable subset of TeX and LaTeX." So I
guess that when teTeX is split, this would be a good aim.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Adrian Bunk , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Adrian Bunk
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:48:26 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.9922598249692
(code B ref 100332); Mon, 11 Jun 2001 11:48:26 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:43:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Adrian Bunk
X-X-Sender:
To: Julian Gilbey
cc: <100332@bugs.debian.org>
In-Reply-To: <20010611123738.A15194@polya>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
> > > > 36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
> > >
> > > tetex-bin is standard priority, xlibs is optional.
> >
> > tetex-bin is optional.
>
> Standard should include "a reasonable subset of TeX and LaTeX." So I
> guess that when teTeX is split, this would be a good aim.
And the split of the tetex-* packages is scheduled after woody is stable.
And you didn't answer my "where's the big gain?" - I still can see nothing
that is worth to do the extremely ugly things you proposed only to hide
the dependencies of tetex-bin.
> Julian
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Acknowledgement sent to Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Adrian Bunk
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
References:
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2001 11:43:44 +0000
From bunk@fs.tum.de Mon Jun 11 06:43:44 2001
Return-path:
Received: from nilpferd.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de [::ffff:129.187.176.79]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159Q6h-0002WF-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 06:43:43 -0500
Received: (qmail 3636 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2001 11:43:32 -0000
Received: from mimas.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de (HELO mimas) (129.187.176.26)
by nilpferd.fachschaften.tu-muenchen.de with SMTP; 11 Jun 2001 11:43:32 -0000
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 13:43:28 +0200 (CEST)
From: Adrian Bunk
X-X-Sender:
To: Julian Gilbey
cc: <100332@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
In-Reply-To: <20010611123738.A15194@polya>
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > And where's the big gain? When you install tetex-bin you install more than
> > > > 36 MB of teTeX packages - xlibs has less than 5 MB.
> > >
> > > tetex-bin is standard priority, xlibs is optional.
> >
> > tetex-bin is optional.
>
> Standard should include "a reasonable subset of TeX and LaTeX." So I
> guess that when teTeX is split, this would be a good aim.
And the split of the tetex-* packages is scheduled after woody is stable.
And you didn't answer my "where's the big gain?" - I still can see nothing
that is worth to do the extremely ugly things you proposed only to hide
the dependencies of tetex-bin.
> Julian
cu
Adrian
--
A "No" uttered from deepest conviction is better and greater than a
"Yes" merely uttered to please, or what is worse, to avoid trouble.
-- Mahatma Ghandi
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
Subject: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Reply-To: Julian Gilbey , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Julian Gilbey
Orignal-Sender: Julian Gilbey
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:04:52 GMT
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.99226060913757
(code B ref 100332); Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:04:52 GMT
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:55:31 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
Message-ID: <20010611125531.B15558@polya>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:43:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Standard should include "a reasonable subset of TeX and LaTeX." So I
> > guess that when teTeX is split, this would be a good aim.
>
> And the split of the tetex-* packages is scheduled after woody is stable.
Sounds OK.
> And you didn't answer my "where's the big gain?" - I still can see nothing
> that is worth to do the extremely ugly things you proposed only to hide
> the dependencies of tetex-bin.
I realised that with an intelligent split as you were thinking, there
is no gain. There would only be a gain if there weren't a split.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Acknowledgement sent to Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Julian Gilbey
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <20010611125531.B15558@polya>
References: <20010611125531.B15558@polya>
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info-maintonly 100332
Thank you for the additional information you have supplied regarding
this problem report. It has been forwarded to the developer(s) and
to the developers mailing list to accompany the original report.
Your message has been sent to the package maintainer(s):
teTeX maintainers
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Jun 2001 11:56:49 +0000
From J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk Mon Jun 11 06:56:49 2001
Return-path:
Received: from mserv1f.u-net.net (mserv1f.vianw.co.uk) [::ffff:195.102.249.207]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 159QJN-0003Zl-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 06:56:49 -0500
Received: from [195.102.196.34] (helo=polya)
by mserv1f.vianw.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #5)
id 159QKG-0000Lm-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:57:45 +0100
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
id 159QI7-00043Q-00; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:55:31 +0100
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:55:31 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey
To: Adrian Bunk
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Message-ID: <20010611125531.B15558@polya>
References:
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To:
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i
Sender: Julian Gilbey
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 01:43:28PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Standard should include "a reasonable subset of TeX and LaTeX." So I
> > guess that when teTeX is split, this would be a good aim.
>
> And the split of the tetex-* packages is scheduled after woody is stable.
Sounds OK.
> And you didn't answer my "where's the big gain?" - I still can see nothing
> that is worth to do the extremely ugly things you proposed only to hide
> the dependencies of tetex-bin.
I realised that with an intelligent split as you were thinking, there
is no gain. There would only be a gain if there weren't a split.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, Dept of Maths, Queen Mary, Univ. of London
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see http://people.debian.org/~jdg
Donate free food to the world's hungry: see http://www.thehungersite.com/
Merged 78926 100332.
Request was from "C.M. Connelly" <c@eskimo.com>
to control@bugs.debian.org.
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:
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"
From: "C.M. Connelly"
Reply-To: "C.M. Connelly"
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
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#100332: Separate xdvi package
Reply-To: "mike@flyn.org" , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: "mike@flyn.org"
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:03:10 UTC
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.106011352216911
(code B ref 100332); Tue, 05 Aug 2003 20:03:10 UTC
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Aug 2003 19:58:42 +0000
Received: from neuromancer.voxel.net [209.123.232.166]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19k7x9-0004OS-00; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:58:39 -0500
Received: from www.flyn.org (neuromancer.voxel.net [207.99.115.50])
by neuromancer.voxel.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 25D703143B
for <100332@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "mike@flyn.org"
To: <100332@bugs.debian.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:58:36 -0400
X-Mailer: Null Webmail / 0.6.4
Message-Id: <20030805195837.25D703143B@neuromancer.voxel.net>
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_20
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
I too would like to see xdvi in a different package than tetex-bin. LaTeX is a
very useful system without X and I don't think the X libs and X Athena toolkit
should be required for its installation. I think that moving xdvi and any other
X tools into their own package would be a rational and clean thing to do.
Acknowledgement sent to "mike@flyn.org" <mike@flyn.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: "mike@flyn.org"
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was Separate xdvi package)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <20030805195837.25D703143B@neuromancer.voxel.net>
References: <20030805195837.25D703143B@neuromancer.voxel.net>
Precedence: bulk
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info 100332
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
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Aug 2003 19:58:42 +0000
From mike@flyn.org Tue Aug 05 14:58:39 2003
Return-path:
Received: from neuromancer.voxel.net [209.123.232.166]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 19k7x9-0004OS-00; Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:58:39 -0500
Received: from www.flyn.org (neuromancer.voxel.net [207.99.115.50])
by neuromancer.voxel.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 25D703143B
for <100332@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 15:58:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: "mike@flyn.org"
To: <100332@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Separate xdvi package
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:58:36 -0400
X-Mailer: Null Webmail / 0.6.4
Message-Id: <20030805195837.25D703143B@neuromancer.voxel.net>
Delivered-To: 100332@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=4.0
tests=BAYES_20
version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)
I too would like to see xdvi in a different package than tetex-bin. LaTeX is a
very useful system without X and I don't think the X libs and X Athena toolkit
should be required for its installation. I think that moving xdvi and any other
X tools into their own package would be a rational and clean thing to do.
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#100332: And now for something completely different... etch!
Reply-To: Frans Pop , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Frans Pop
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 08:33:03 UTC
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.111813282914025
(code B ref 100332); Tue, 07 Jun 2005 08:33:03 UTC
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jun 2005 08:27:09 +0000
Received: from smtp-out4.tiscali.nl [195.241.79.137]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DfZQS-0003e1-00; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:27:08 -0700
Received: from [195.240.184.66] (helo=strider.fjphome.nl)
by smtp-out4.tiscali.nl with esmtp (Tiscali http://www.tiscali.nl)
id 1DfZQR-00050B-Gd; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:27:07 +0200
From: Frans Pop
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:27:08 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
References: <20050606230311.GA25820@dat.etsit.upm.es>
In-Reply-To: <20050606230311.GA25820@dat.etsit.upm.es>
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="nextPart1208129.bS6LYT3fWO";
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200506071027.08578.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Delivered-To: 100332@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-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
--nextPart1208129.bS6LYT3fWO
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 01:03, Javier Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino Pe=F1a wrote:
> Feel free to add some new items or add (hopefully new) information to
> the ones I list below:
>
=2D-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Overall improvements ]
=2D Implement some package reorganizations that have been postponed over
several releases; example:
#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
--nextPart1208129.bS6LYT3fWO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBCpVpcgm/Kwh6ICoQRAgY5AKDOfjDi3oLHr03rMNX/1UQFHjcrxgCdEkJj
tlea2DIcbJX3a1f8aKCpY4I=
=2UwA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1208129.bS6LYT3fWO--
Acknowledgement sent to Frans Pop <aragorn@tiscali.nl>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Frans Pop
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was And now for something completely different... etch!)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <200506071027.08578.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
References: <200506071027.08578.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Precedence: bulk
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info 100332
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
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jun 2005 08:27:09 +0000
From aragorn@tiscali.nl Tue Jun 07 01:27:08 2005
Return-path:
Received: from smtp-out4.tiscali.nl [195.241.79.137]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DfZQS-0003e1-00; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 01:27:08 -0700
Received: from [195.240.184.66] (helo=strider.fjphome.nl)
by smtp-out4.tiscali.nl with esmtp (Tiscali http://www.tiscali.nl)
id 1DfZQR-00050B-Gd; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:27:07 +0200
From: Frans Pop
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: And now for something completely different... etch!
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:27:08 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2
References: <20050606230311.GA25820@dat.etsit.upm.es>
In-Reply-To: <20050606230311.GA25820@dat.etsit.upm.es>
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
boundary="nextPart1208129.bS6LYT3fWO";
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200506071027.08578.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
Delivered-To: 100332@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-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
--nextPart1208129.bS6LYT3fWO
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 01:03, Javier Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino Pe=F1a wrote:
> Feel free to add some new items or add (hopefully new) information to
> the ones I list below:
>
=2D-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Overall improvements ]
=2D Implement some package reorganizations that have been postponed over
several releases; example:
#100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
--nextPart1208129.bS6LYT3fWO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBCpVpcgm/Kwh6ICoQRAgY5AKDOfjDi3oLHr03rMNX/1UQFHjcrxgCdEkJj
tlea2DIcbJX3a1f8aKCpY4I=
=2UwA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--nextPart1208129.bS6LYT3fWO--
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#100332: xdvi split (was: Bug#100332: And now for something completely different... etch!)
Reply-To: Frank Küster , 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Frank Küster
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:48:07 UTC
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.111814106825050
(code B ref 100332); Tue, 07 Jun 2005 10:48:07 UTC
Received: (at 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jun 2005 10:44:28 +0000
Received: from idmailgate1.unizh.ch [130.60.68.105]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DfbZM-0006Vr-00; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 03:44:28 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([130.60.169.112])
by idmailgate1.unizh.ch (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j57AiPh1010276;
Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:44:26 +0200
Received: from localhost
([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost.localdomain ident=frank)
by localhost.localdomain with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1DfbZJ-0001yl-Nx; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:44:25 +0200
To: Frans Pop
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
In-Reply-To: <200506071027.08578.aragorn@tiscali.nl> (Frans Pop's message of
"Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:27:08 +0200")
References: <20050606230311.GA25820@dat.etsit.upm.es>
<200506071027.08578.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?=
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:44:24 +0200
Message-ID: <87ll5msayf.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: 100332@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-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Hi all,
(taking -devel out of the Cc)
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 01:03, Javier Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino Pe=F1a wrote:
>> Feel free to add some new items or add (hopefully new) information to
>> the ones I list below:
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ Overall improvements ]
> - Implement some package reorganizations that have been postponed over
> several releases; example:
> #100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Yes, the teTeX reorganisation should definitely be done real soon now -
after 3.0 has been uploaded to unstable, and had some little time to
prove that it works.
Frans, are you willing to help with that? Since there are a couple of
bug numbers associated with teTeX reorganisation, I think we should move
the discussion to the debian-tetex-maint mailinglist.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer
Acknowledgement sent to Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-t
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
From: owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Frank Küster
Subject: Bug#100332: Info received (was xdvi split (was: Bug#100332: And now for something completely different... etch!))
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <87ll5msayf.fsf_-_@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
References: <87ll5msayf.fsf_-_@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
Precedence: bulk
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info 100332
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
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jun 2005 10:44:28 +0000
From frank@kuesterei.ch Tue Jun 07 03:44:28 2005
Return-path:
Received: from idmailgate1.unizh.ch [130.60.68.105]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DfbZM-0006Vr-00; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 03:44:28 -0700
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([130.60.169.112])
by idmailgate1.unizh.ch (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id j57AiPh1010276;
Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:44:26 +0200
Received: from localhost
([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost.localdomain ident=frank)
by localhost.localdomain with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1DfbZJ-0001yl-Nx; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:44:25 +0200
To: Frans Pop
Cc: 100332@bugs.debian.org
Subject: xdvi split (was: Bug#100332: And now for something completely
different... etch!)
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
In-Reply-To: <200506071027.08578.aragorn@tiscali.nl> (Frans Pop's message of
"Tue, 7 Jun 2005 10:27:08 +0200")
References: <20050606230311.GA25820@dat.etsit.upm.es>
<200506071027.08578.aragorn@tiscali.nl>
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?=
Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:44:24 +0200
Message-ID: <87ll5msayf.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: 100332@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-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Hi all,
(taking -devel out of the Cc)
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2005 01:03, Javier Fern=E1ndez-Sanguino Pe=F1a wrote:
>> Feel free to add some new items or add (hopefully new) information to
>> the ones I list below:
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [ Overall improvements ]
> - Implement some package reorganizations that have been postponed over
> several releases; example:
> #100332: tetex-bin: please move xdvi to its own package
Yes, the teTeX reorganisation should definitely be done real soon now -
after 3.0 has been uploaded to unstable, and had some little time to
prove that it works.
Frans, are you willing to help with that? Since there are a couple of
bug numbers associated with teTeX reorganisation, I think we should move
the discussion to the debian-tetex-maint mailinglist.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer
Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>:
Bug#100332; Package tetex-bin.
debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.orgteTeX maintainers
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#100332: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian
Reply-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>, tetex-base split <302035@bugs.debian.org>, 100332@bugs.debian.org
Resent-From: Frank =?UTF-8?Q?K=C3=BCster?=
Resent-To: debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org
Resent-CC: teTeX maintainers
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:03:06 UTC
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
Received: via spool by 100332-submit@bugs.debian.org id=B100332.11301365958044
(code B ref 100332); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:03:06 UTC
Received: (at 100332) 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?=
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: 100332@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: 22
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
Acknowledgement sent to tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>, tetex-base split <302035@bugs.debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>.
-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#100332: Info received (was New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian)
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To: <87pspzaqra.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
References: <87pspzaqra.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
Precedence: bulk
X-Debian-PR-Message: ack-info 100332
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
If you wish to continue to submit further information on your problem,
please send it to 100332@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 100332) by bugs.debian.org; 24 Oct 2005 06:49:55 +0000
From frank@kuesterei.ch Sun Oct 23 23:49:55 2005
Return-path:
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?=
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: 100332@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: 22
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
Message sent on to Ryan Murray <rmurray@cyberhqz.com>:
Bug#100332.
Ryan Murray
X-Loop: owner@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#100332: New package splitting scheme for teTeX in Debian
Reply-To: tetex-bin split <100332@bugs.debian.org>, tetex-base split <302035@bugs.debian.org>, 100332-quiet@bugs.debian.org
Resent-To: Ryan Murray
Resent-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:03:29 UTC
Resent-Message-ID:
Resent-Sender: owner@bugs.debian.org
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 100332
X-Debian-PR-Package: tetex-bin
X-Debian-PR-Keywords:
Received: via spool by 100332-submitter@bugs.debian.org id=U100332.11301365958020
(code U ref 100332); Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:03:29 UTC
Received: (at 100332-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?=
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: 100332-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: 19
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 100332-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:
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?=
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: 100332-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: 19
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