Does Slack 14 include tetex version of TeX?

[jo...@wexfordpress.com]

I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using the
TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
I was told that it is too big. No problem, I can just download it
separately. No serious user of TeX will revert to the tetex package
which hasn't been updated in years.

If Slack 14 still contains tetex I suggest it be deleted. That should
save some space on the distro disks.

John Culleton

[Michael Black]

Check the changelog. I tried, and didn't find anything with tetex or tex,
so the package must be named something else, or it is gone.

It's kind of late to suggest it be removed, I'm thinking later this week
it may be a proper release, or at least "beta" if it goes to "beta".

Michael

[Kees Theunissen]

Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, jo...@wexfordpress.com wrote:
>
>> I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using the
>> TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
>> I was told that it is too big. No problem, I can just download it
>> separately. No serious user of TeX will revert to the tetex package
>> which hasn't been updated in years.
>>
>> If Slack 14 still contains tetex I suggest it be deleted. That should
>> save some space on the distro disks.
>>
> Check the changelog. I tried, and didn't find anything with tetex or
> tex, so the package must be named something else, or it is gone.

No. A removed or renamed package would have been mentioned in the
Changelog. If it isn't in the Changelog then it didn't change since
Slackware 13.37.

Check the contents of the <slackware-current>/slackware/t directory,
it's the same as the similar directory in 13.37.


Regards,

Kees.

--
Kees Theunissen.

[Michael Black]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012, Kees Theunissen wrote:

> Michael Black wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, jo...@wexfordpress.com wrote:
>>
>>> I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using the
>>> TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
>>> I was told that it is too big. No problem, I can just download it
>>> separately. No serious user of TeX will revert to the tetex package
>>> which hasn't been updated in years.
>>>
>>> If Slack 14 still contains tetex I suggest it be deleted. That should
>>> save some space on the distro disks.
>>>
>> Check the changelog. I tried, and didn't find anything with tetex or
>> tex, so the package must be named something else, or it is gone.
>
> No. A removed or renamed package would have been mentioned in the
> Changelog. If it isn't in the Changelog then it didn't change since
> Slackware 13.37.
>

That's true. I was thinking everything gets recompiled each time, but
that can't be.

Michael

[Dan C]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:44:38 -0400, Michael Black wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, jo...@wexfordpress.com wrote:
>
>> I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using the
>> TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
>> I was told that it is too big. No problem, I can just download it
>> separately. No serious user of TeX will revert to the tetex package
>> which hasn't been updated in years.
>>
>> If Slack 14 still contains tetex I suggest it be deleted. That should
>> save some space on the distro disks.
>>
> Check the changelog. I tried, and didn't find anything with tetex or
> tex,
> so the package must be named something else, or it is gone.

Ummmm, no. That simply means it hasn't changed. It is a "changelog",
after all...

> It's kind of late to suggest it be removed, I'm thinking later this week
> it may be a proper release, or at least "beta" if it goes to "beta".

The development cycle generally follows the order: alpha/beta/RC (release
candidate). Since we're already at RC4, the chance of a "beta"
is........... ZERO.


--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he reinstalled TLX 3.1.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg

[jo...@wexfordpress.com]

On Sep 10, 11:49 pm, Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:44:38 -0400, Michael Black wrote:

> > On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, j...@wexfordpress.com wrote:
>
> >> I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using the
> >> TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
> >> I was told that it is too big. No problem, I can just download it
> >> separately. No serious user of TeX will revert to the tetex package
> >> which hasn't been updated in years.
>
> >> If Slack 14 still contains tetex I suggest it be deleted. That should
> >> save some space on the distro disks.
>
> > Check the changelog.  I tried, and didn't find anything with tetex or
> > tex,
> > so the package must be named something else, or it is gone.
>
> Ummmm, no.  That simply means it hasn't changed.  It is a "changelog",
> after all...
>
> > It's kind of late to suggest it be removed, I'm thinking later this week
> > it may be a proper release, or at least "beta" if it goes to "beta".
>
> The development cycle generally follows the order: alpha/beta/RC (release
> candidate).  Since we're already at RC4, the chance of a "beta"
> is........... ZERO.
>

Maybe next time.

John C.

[JohnF]

jo...@wexfordpress.com <jo...@wexfordpress.com> wrote:

> Dan C <youmustbejok...@lan.invalid> wrote:
>> > j...@wexfordpress.com wrote:
>>
>> >> I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using the
>> >> TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
>>

>> The development cycle generally follows the order: alpha/beta/RC

>> Since we're already at RC4, the chance of a "beta" is 0.

>>
> Maybe next time.
> John C.

Is stuff like http://slackbuilds.org/repository/13.0/office/texlive/
any good? That is, is there a good "one click install" kind of texlive
package for slackware? Trying to install/configure straight from the
texlive dvd ain't for sissies (which, in this case, would be me).
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j...@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )

[Paweł Wlaź]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, JohnF wrote:

[ . . . ]

>
> Is stuff like http://slackbuilds.org/repository/13.0/office/texlive/
> any good? That is, is there a good "one click install" kind of texlive
> package for slackware? Trying to install/configure straight from the
> texlive dvd ain't for sissies (which, in this case, would be me).

I use texlive package prepared with the help of slackbuilds.org (but
for slackware 13.37) and I am very happy with it. Yes, this is as easy
to install as any slackware package. Not exactly "one click" (I don't
click while installing).

Pawel

[mikewd]

That slackbuild is for texlive 2009, that three years old.

texlive can be installed from the DVD by sissies, after all I did it.
The main thing is to use the gui installer. That needs perl-tk to be
installed. I used peerl-tk-804.029 with a SlackBuild from
slackbuilds.org. Then just run ./install-tl -gui on the DVD. I think I
may have had to remount the DVD as executable. Then just set what to
install and where to install it. I installed to /opt. After that make a
file in /etc/profile.d to set the PATH, MANPATH and INFOPATH. Once
installed the texlive manager works nicely, tlmgr --gui. It can do
maintanance, change settings, install missing packages, and update
packages.

One can also just download the install program from a texlive mirror and
install online.

Cheers,
Mike

[JohnF]

mikewd <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> JohnF wrote:
>>>> > j...@wexfordpress.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using
>>>> >> the TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
>>

>> Is stuff like http://slackbuilds.org/repository/13.0/office/texlive/ any
>> good? That is, is there a good "one click install" kind of texlive
>> package for slackware? Trying to install/configure straight from the
>> texlive dvd ain't for sissies (which, in this case, would be me).
>

> That slackbuild is for texlive 2009, three years old.

> texlive can be installed from the DVD by sissies, after all I did it.
> The main thing is to use the gui installer. That needs perl-tk to be
> installed. I used peerl-tk-804.029 with a SlackBuild from
> slackbuilds.org. Then just run ./install-tl -gui on the DVD. I think I
> may have had to remount the DVD as executable. Then just set what to
> install and where to install it. I installed to /opt. After that make a
> file in /etc/profile.d to set the PATH, MANPATH and INFOPATH. Once
> installed the texlive manager works nicely, tlmgr --gui. It can do
> maintanance, change settings, install missing packages, and update
> packages.
> One can also just download the install program from a texlive mirror
> and install online. Cheers,
> Mike

Okay, thanks for the info, Mike (ditto Pawel).
Maybe I'll give that another try, with texlive 2012, when installing 14.
(Strange that nobody's put together a more recent slackbuild for it.)

[Joost Kremers]

JohnF wrote:
> (Strange that nobody's put together a more recent slackbuild for it.)

<http://slackbuilds.org/repository/13.37/office/texlive/>

though installing texlive through the net installer really isn't
difficult. :-)


--
Joost Kremers joostk...@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9)

[Robby Workman]

On 2012-09-17, JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote:
>
> Is stuff like http://slackbuilds.org/repository/13.0/office/texlive/
> any good? That is, is there a good "one click install" kind of texlive
> package for slackware? Trying to install/configure straight from the
> texlive dvd ain't for sissies (which, in this case, would be me).

Well, I'm biased, but I think it's pretty decent ;-)

I host pre-built packages on my personal site (but please consider
using the mirror I link there), or you can build it yourself.
Either should function the same.

-RW

[Robby Workman]

On 2012-09-10, jo...@wexfordpress.com <jo...@wexfordpress.com> wrote:
> I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using the
> TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
> I was told that it is too big. No problem, I can just download it
> separately. No serious user of TeX will revert to the tetex package
> which hasn't been updated in years.

For the distro stuff requiring TeX, tetex is plenty adequate. In other
words, it does everything that *we* need it to do when *building* the
distribution. I've done quite a few presentations and such with it too,
but my needs are hardly representative of the TeX community as a whole.

TeXLive is indeed too large. Here is listing of the sources needed to
build it:

[rworkman@liberty pending]$ ls -lh src/texlive/
total 1.5G
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 765 Sep 4 06:00 README
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 710 Aug 1 21:15 README.tlpkg
drwxr-sr-x 2 rworkman rworkman 4.0K Aug 1 21:15 branch2012/
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 344 Aug 1 21:15 doinst.sh
drwxr-sr-x 2 rworkman rworkman 4.0K Aug 1 21:15 patches/
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 894 Aug 15 20:21 slack-desc
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 15M Jul 1 2010 texi2html-5.0.tar.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 126M Jul 1 13:08 texlive-20120701-source.tar.xz
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 1.4G Jul 1 14:01 texlive-20120701-texmf.tar.xz
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 5.5K Aug 1 21:15 texlive.SlackBuild
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 575 Sep 4 06:00 texlive.info

Here are the resulting packages:

[rworkman@liberty pending]$ ls -lh i486/texlive-20120701-i486-1_rlw.txz x86_64/texlive-20120701-x86_64-1_rlw.txz
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 1.4G Sep 13 01:59 i486/texlive-20120701-i486-1_rlw.txz
-rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 1.4G Sep 13 01:50 x86_64/texlive-20120701-x86_64-1_rlw.txz


In case it's not obvious, I'll have packages for 14.0 as soon as it's
released. For that matter, I've got TeXLive 2011 packages for 13.37
on my site too.

> If Slack 14 still contains tetex I suggest it be deleted. That should
> save some space on the distro disks.

No no, we *need* a TeX implementation - and tetex is good enough.

-RW

[Joost Kremers]

Robby Workman wrote:
> No no, we *need* a TeX implementation - and tetex is good enough.

for now... but at some point, the bit rot will set in. are there any
plans on what to do then?

[Jim Diamond]

On 2012-09-19 at 23:46 ADT, Robby Workman <newsg...@rlworkman.net> wrote:
> On 2012-09-10, jo...@wexfordpress.com <jo...@wexfordpress.com> wrote:
>> I have discussed before the possibility of the Slack distro using the
>> TeXLive 2012 version of the TeX suite.
>> I was told that it is too big. No problem, I can just download it
>> separately. No serious user of TeX will revert to the tetex package
>> which hasn't been updated in years.
>
>
> For the distro stuff requiring TeX, tetex is plenty adequate. In other
> words, it does everything that *we* need it to do when *building* the
> distribution. I've done quite a few presentations and such with it too,
> but my needs are hardly representative of the TeX community as a whole.
>
> TeXLive is indeed too large. Here is listing of the sources needed to
> build it:

<snip>

> Here are the resulting packages:
>
> [rworkman@liberty pending]$ ls -lh i486/texlive-20120701-i486-1_rlw.txz x86_64/texlive-20120701-x86_64-1_rlw.txz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 1.4G Sep 13 01:59 i486/texlive-20120701-i486-1_rlw.txz
> -rw-r--r-- 1 rworkman rworkman 1.4G Sep 13 01:50 x86_64/texlive-20120701-x86_64-1_rlw.txz
>

> In case it's not obvious, I'll have packages for 14.0 as soon as it's
> released. For that matter, I've got TeXLive 2011 packages for 13.37
> on my site too.

Robby,

it's nice of you to make packages and to provide them to the
community.

But texlive is updated "continuously", and your packages will be out
of date before the bits are dry. I guess people could install
packages which provide a snapshot of texlive, but in some respects a
package that provides the installer and sets up some directories for
tex, and then lets the person install over the net, might be more
useful and would be much smaller.

Perhaps someone who installs your packages can do the usual
tlmgr update --all
but if the updates are done in the package tree, then the package
files in /var/log/packages will no longer reflect what is on disk.

The texlive people have done a very nice job of setting things up so
TeX can be installed and maintained with very little effort. Perhaps
a texlive HOWTO is the thing to do for now.

Cheers.
Jim

[Robby Workman]

On 2012-09-20, Joost Kremers <joostk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Robby Workman wrote:
>> No no, we *need* a TeX implementation - and tetex is good enough.
>
> for now... but at some point, the bit rot will set in. are there any
> plans on what to do then?

I plan to run around in circles and scream. ;-)

Seriously, I don't know. There's been some light discussion, but I
think it's going to be one of those "we'll burn that bridge when we
get to it" things...

-RW

[Robby Workman]

Such is the case with most software - you can build e.g. the linux kernel
every day from git, and your kernel will be out of date before the bits

are dry.


> I guess people could install packages which provide a snapshot of
> texlive, but in some respects a package that provides the installer
> and sets up some directories for tex, and then lets the person install
> over the net, might be more useful and would be much smaller.

That's a lot more complexity and effort for me. I personally don't
see any benefit to the additional work, and I dare say that the vast
majority of users don't either. The most recent release of a given
software package is generally acceptable for most use cases, and I
think TeXLive certainly falls within that.

> Perhaps someone who installs your packages can do the usual
> tlmgr update --all
> but if the updates are done in the package tree, then the package
> files in /var/log/packages will no longer reflect what is on disk.

Nope, tlpkg (tlmgr et al) is not shipped with the package, and that is
by design because of (at a minimum) the packaging issues you mentioned.

> The texlive people have done a very nice job of setting things up so
> TeX can be installed and maintained with very little effort. Perhaps
> a texlive HOWTO is the thing to do for now.

I have nothing against a preference to install TeXLive using tlmgr or
some other tug.org-provided tool(s), just as I have nothing against a
preference to running third-party (e.g. vmware) install scripts on a
machine - if either and/or both of those are your preference, so be it.
Neither of them are *my* preference, however, and so I'm not going to
make either of them easier for users to do. I prefer to have all of
my installed software packaged in Slackware format, so that's what I
try to make easier for users. The package I host on my site is built
with this script (which I wrote and maintain), so users are free to
do the build themselves:
http://slackbuilds.org/repository/14.0/office/texlive/

-RW

[Jim Diamond]

I don't think that's a good analogy. If you read comp.text.tex (for
example), you will know that if you solicit assistance for a problem
people will usually want you to have the up-to-date packages loaded.
It's easy to install and try a new kernel (if you are debugging a
problem) without having to remove anything from your system, but
replacing one or two packages by hand in a TL installation is a much
bigger configuration nightmare.

>> I guess people could install packages which provide a snapshot of
>> texlive, but in some respects a package that provides the installer
>> and sets up some directories for tex, and then lets the person install
>> over the net, might be more useful and would be much smaller.
> That's a lot more complexity and effort for me.

Hmmm... really?

> I personally don't see any benefit

Because people could keep their TL distribution up to date?

> to the additional work, and I dare say that the vast majority of
> users don't either.

The vast majority of Slackware users or the vast majority of TeX
users? If the former, I don't know. If the latter, I think you're
quite wrong.

> The most recent release of a given software package is generally
> acceptable for most use cases, and I think TeXLive certainly falls
> within that.

What is the "most recent release" of TL2012? The one you would get if
you installed TL today (following their instructions), or the one you
would have if you had installed months ago?

Are you a TeX user (outside the minimal use that Slackware packages
make of it)?

Jim

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:16:02 -0400, Jim Diamond
<Jim.D...@deletethis.acadiau.ca> wrote:

> What is the "most recent release" of TL2012? The one you would get if
> you installed TL today (following their instructions), or the one you
> would have if you had installed months ago?

> Are you a TeX user (outside the minimal use that Slackware packages
> make of it)?

I don't know about others, but I am a TeX user, and while I can appreciate
rolling releases, one of the things I like about Slackware is the stable
releases on a schedule that is relatively nice. For the most part, I want
the software that I use to be upgradeable and manageable in the same way:
fixed, reliable point releases that don't come out too often. If I want to
selectively upgrade things, then that's fine, but I don't want to be on a
continuous update cycle, usually.

If TeXLive is a rolling release as you say, then I wish they would also
provide fixed, supported stable releases that are released every 7 - 18
months or so.

--
Aaron W. Hsu | arc...@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us
Programming is just another word for the Lost Art of Thinking.

[Robby Workman]

If you have problems with the kernel, they're going to want you to
try the most up-to-date release available, and if the problem still
exists, it's time to start doing git bisects.

>
>>> I guess people could install packages which provide a snapshot of
>>> texlive, but in some respects a package that provides the installer
>>> and sets up some directories for tex, and then lets the person install
>>> over the net, might be more useful and would be much smaller.
>> That's a lot more complexity and effort for me.
> Hmmm... really?
>> I personally don't see any benefit
> Because people could keep their TL distribution up to date?

This "up to date" idea you have isn't exactly the same as the one that
I have.

>> to the additional work, and I dare say that the vast majority of
>> users don't either.
> The vast majority of Slackware users or the vast majority of TeX
> users? If the former, I don't know. If the latter, I think you're
> quite wrong.

I was referring to the vast majority of Slackware users. I'll admit
that I don't *know* about either group, but if the core functionality
of TeXLive changes *that* much from day to day or week to week or
even month to month, and in a way that the average TeX user will find
noticeable, I don't think the *real* problem is at all related to how
it's packaged/installed on a user's system...

>> The most recent release of a given software package is generally
>> acceptable for most use cases, and I think TeXLive certainly falls
>> within that.
> What is the "most recent release" of TL2012? The one you would get if
> you installed TL today (following their instructions), or the one you
> would have if you had installed months ago?

From the TeXLive homepage <https://www.tug.org/texlive/>:
"Current release: TeX Live 2012 is available over the Internet and on
DVD. It was released on 8 July 2012."
Therefore, you'll get TeXLive 2012 if you use my package. Until TL2013
is released, that won't change. The TL maintainers have a -stable svn
branch that I follow, and I periodically update the package and build
script on SBo to integrate those patches. The fact that they maintain
a -stable branch (which was done at the request of several other linux
distribution) is a good indication that my view is consistent with that
of the majority (which does not imply correctness, of course).

> Are you a TeX user (outside the minimal use that Slackware packages
> make of it)?

Not really, at least not in the way that you almost surely are. I've
done a few small and simple presentations in latex, but for the most
part, I would not consider it accurate to say that I'm a TeX user.

-RW

[Robby Workman]

On 2012-10-18, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:16:02 -0400, Jim Diamond
><Jim.D...@deletethis.acadiau.ca> wrote:
>
>> What is the "most recent release" of TL2012? The one you would get if
>> you installed TL today (following their instructions), or the one you
>> would have if you had installed months ago?
>
>> Are you a TeX user (outside the minimal use that Slackware packages
>> make of it)?
>
> I don't know about others, but I am a TeX user, and while I can appreciate
> rolling releases, one of the things I like about Slackware is the stable
> releases on a schedule that is relatively nice. For the most part, I want
> the software that I use to be upgradeable and manageable in the same way:
> fixed, reliable point releases that don't come out too often. If I want to
> selectively upgrade things, then that's fine, but I don't want to be on a
> continuous update cycle, usually.

Indeed, and based on the feedback that I've gotten from TeX users, that
seems to be the most typical outlook on the situation.

> If TeXLive is a rolling release as you say, then I wish they would also
> provide fixed, supported stable releases that are released every 7 - 18
> months or so.

They do; see my followup to Jim.

-RW

[Grant]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:21:19 -0400, "Aaron W. Hsu" <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:16:02 -0400, Jim Diamond
><Jim.D...@deletethis.acadiau.ca> wrote:
>
>> What is the "most recent release" of TL2012? The one you would get if
>> you installed TL today (following their instructions), or the one you
>> would have if you had installed months ago?
>
>> Are you a TeX user (outside the minimal use that Slackware packages
>> make of it)?
>
>I don't know about others, but I am a TeX user, and while I can appreciate
>rolling releases, one of the things I like about Slackware is the stable
>releases on a schedule that is relatively nice. For the most part, I want
>the software that I use to be upgradeable and manageable in the same way:
>fixed, reliable point releases that don't come out too often. If I want to
>selectively upgrade things, then that's fine, but I don't want to be on a
>continuous update cycle, usually.
>
>If TeXLive is a rolling release as you say, then I wish they would also
>provide fixed, supported stable releases that are released every 7 - 18
>months or so.

I'm not a TeX user, but I see the analogy here with linux-kernel, which I
happen to have an interest in (my name's in the source ;) The kernel now
has stable, long-term maintained branches, as well as the very latest.

I don't go as far as following git tree though.

Slackware leaves it to their users to upgrade the kernel, if they want to,
it is good security practice, and Slack chose a long-term kernel for 14.0.

It's already up to patch-3.2.32.

Because TeXLive is too big and moving too fast to include with Slackware,
then next best thing is for people to try Robby's script found upthread,
stay updated themselves. Not all stuff plus kitchen sink can be included
in a distro, unless you want to consider Debian and/or its children :)

Grant.

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:20:55 -0400, Grant <o...@grrr.id.au> wrote:

> Because TeXLive is too big and moving too fast to include with Slackware,
> then next best thing is for people to try Robby's script found upthread,
> stay updated themselves.

Personally, if TeXLive does have an officially supported stable release
cycle, I see no reason why it could not be included into the Slackware
distribution. Indeed, I wish it would be the default instead of teTeX. I
have no problems with the large size of the distribution, as this is
already a concern with the existing 14.0 release and -current. It seems
reasonable enough to accept some large packages as well, and I think the
tetex package is somewhat special among the Slackware packages, since
there are up-to-date replacements for it (TeXLive). There are some
packages which are in Slackware which are no longer maintained or updated
very often, but in these cases there is often no up-to-date alternative. I
like these packages staying in Slackware, since I use them, but teTeX does
have an alternative that I think Slackware should switch to, assuming that
TeXLive has a stable release cycle, which it apparently does have.

[Jim Diamond]

On 2012-10-18 at 17:21 ADT, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:16:02 -0400, Jim Diamond
><Jim.D...@deletethis.acadiau.ca> wrote:
>
>> What is the "most recent release" of TL2012? The one you would get if
>> you installed TL today (following their instructions), or the one you
>> would have if you had installed months ago?
>
>> Are you a TeX user (outside the minimal use that Slackware packages
>> make of it)?
>
> I don't know about others, but I am a TeX user, and while I can appreciate
> rolling releases, one of the things I like about Slackware is the stable
> releases on a schedule that is relatively nice. For the most part, I want
> the software that I use to be upgradeable and manageable in the same way:
> fixed, reliable point releases that don't come out too often. If I want to
> selectively upgrade things, then that's fine, but I don't want to be on a
> continuous update cycle, usually.

> If TeXLive is a rolling release as you say, then I wish they would also
> provide fixed, supported stable releases that are released every 7 - 18
> months or so.

What does "supported stable" mean?

If you buy the TL DVD or download the ISO, it is stable, in the sense
that they haven't changed it since July.
However, the support (at least, in my notion of what "support" means)
is that they update packages as and when they see fit. I installed
TL2012 in July, and now I have 227 packages in my .../tlpkg/backups
directory.
Or are you thinking of support in the sense of calling up a help line
and asking questions? (I assume you don't mean that, at least in the
case of TL.)

Perhaps there is a third option in the case of TL, but I only know
about the two
- take the initial release of TL2012 and leave it alone until TL2013
is out, or
- install TL2012 and do a "tlmgr update --all" whenever you see fit.
One is stable, one is "supported". Choose your poison.
(Or explain what "supported stable" means in this context.)

Cheers.
Jim

[Jim Diamond]

On 2012-10-18 at 19:27 ADT, Robby Workman <newsg...@rlworkman.net> wrote:
> On 2012-10-18, Jim Diamond <Jim.D...@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-10-18 at 16:27 ADT, Robby Workman <newsg...@rlworkman.net> wrote:
>>> On 2012-09-21, Jim Diamond <Jim.D...@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Robby,
>>>>
>>>> it's nice of you to make packages and to provide them to the
>>>> community.
>>>>
>>>> But texlive is updated "continuously", and your packages will be out
>>>> of date before the bits are dry.
>>>
>>> Such is the case with most software - you can build e.g. the linux kernel
>>> every day from git, and your kernel will be out of date before the bits
>>> are dry.
>>
>> I don't think that's a good analogy. If you read comp.text.tex (for
>> example), you will know that if you solicit assistance for a problem
>> people will usually want you to have the up-to-date packages loaded.
>> It's easy to install and try a new kernel (if you are debugging a
>> problem) without having to remove anything from your system, but
>> replacing one or two packages by hand in a TL installation is a much
>> bigger configuration nightmare.
>
> If you have problems with the kernel, they're going to want you to
> try the most up-to-date release available, and if the problem still
> exists, it's time to start doing git bisects.

Sure. But I can do that without having to remove any of the standard
Slackware packages. But replacing one package in a TL installation
may require you to update map files, ... which might change all sorts
of files which are under the control of the packages, which means your
actual TeX files and your /var/log/package/tex* files are now out of
sync. And no-one wants that :-)

>>>> I guess people could install packages which provide a snapshot of
>>>> texlive, but in some respects a package that provides the installer
>>>> and sets up some directories for tex, and then lets the person install
>>>> over the net, might be more useful and would be much smaller.
>>> That's a lot more complexity and effort for me.
>> Hmmm... really?
>>> I personally don't see any benefit
>> Because people could keep their TL distribution up to date?
> This "up to date" idea you have isn't exactly the same as the one that
> I have.

Maybe. I want my TL to be up-to-date with respect to the most recent
updates of the TL team. For people who don't need/want that, there
are a variety of choices, including your packages.

>>> to the additional work, and I dare say that the vast majority of
>>> users don't either.
>> The vast majority of Slackware users or the vast majority of TeX
>> users? If the former, I don't know. If the latter, I think you're
>> quite wrong.
> I was referring to the vast majority of Slackware users. I'll admit
> that I don't *know* about either group, but if the core functionality
> of TeXLive changes *that* much from day to day or week to week or
> even month to month, and in a way that the average TeX user will find
> noticeable, I don't think the *real* problem is at all related to how
> it's packaged/installed on a user's system...

I have 227 packages updated since July for TL2012. No wait, I just
did an update, now it's 240. :-)
With respect to your "the *real* problem", I could guess at what you
mean, but perhaps I shouldn't. If someone suggests there is a problem
because TL has lots of updates, they could complain that the TL people
and the network of contributors didn't do a good job of fixing every
bug and doing every possible update before TL2012 was released, but
given the nature of TeX that isn't really reasonable.

I maintain one (minor) TeX package. I am planning on pushing out an
improvement in the next week or two. The TL people might update the
package, they might not. If they do, someone who updates gets improved
functionality, someone who doesn't update waits for 9 months to get
the improved functionality. I'm not sure I see the virtue of waiting,
if that functionality is something that would make one's work easier.

>>> The most recent release of a given software package is generally
>>> acceptable for most use cases, and I think TeXLive certainly falls
>>> within that.
>> What is the "most recent release" of TL2012? The one you would get if
>> you installed TL today (following their instructions), or the one you
>> would have if you had installed months ago?
> From the TeXLive homepage <https://www.tug.org/texlive/>:
> "Current release: TeX Live 2012 is available over the Internet and on
> DVD. It was released on 8 July 2012."
> Therefore, you'll get TeXLive 2012 if you use my package. Until TL2013
> is released, that won't change. The TL maintainers have a -stable svn
> branch that I follow, and I periodically update the package and build
> script on SBo to integrate those patches. The fact that they maintain
> a -stable branch (which was done at the request of several other linux
> distribution) is a good indication that my view is consistent with that
> of the majority (which does not imply correctness, of course).

Well, that's interesting. If you update your packages and build
script, then someone can update their TL installation with your
packages. So the Slackware package isn't stable in the sense of
"doesn't change between the initial release of TL-N and TL-{N+1}".

So maybe it isn't so much an issue of whether to do updates, but what
set of updates one wishes to follow.

>> Are you a TeX user (outside the minimal use that Slackware packages
>> make of it)?
> Not really, at least not in the way that you almost surely are. I've
> done a few small and simple presentations in latex, but for the most
> part, I would not consider it accurate to say that I'm a TeX user.

Well, then I'd hazard a guess that infrequent (or once a year) updates
are probably all you need. And, as you say, it is quite likely that a
lot (I won't say "most") of Slackware users would have thier needs met
with that, so as I said previously it is nice of you to provide that.

Perhaps there are a very small number of people who don't know how to
install TL themselves but would like the "cutting-edge" version. I'll
point out, for the benefit of anyone still reading (and who doesn't
already know) that TL2012 installs all of its files under one
directory. Thus it doesn't really need package management in the same
way that a package which installs files in 43 directories on your
system needs package management. When TL2013 comes out, I will
install it in /usr/local/texlive/tl2013 and change my
/usr/local/texlive/current symlink from /usr/local/texlive/tl2012 to
.../tl12103, and that is that. And when I am sure I'm happy with
TL2013, I can (recursively) delete /usr/local/texlive/tl2013, and
that's it.

Cheers.
Jim

[Aaron W. Hsu]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:03:41 -0400, Jim Diamond
<Jim.D...@deletethis.acadiau.ca> wrote:

> On 2012-10-18 at 17:21 ADT, Aaron W. Hsu <arc...@sacrideo.us> wrote:

>> If TeXLive is a rolling release as you say, then I wish they would also
>> provide fixed, supported stable releases that are released every 7 - 18
>> months or so.

> What does "supported stable" mean?

There are projects which are strictly rolling release only, which means
that if I submit a question to them about something that does not work the
way that I expect, their official policy is to only make an effort if I
can reproduce the problem on the latest rolling release (this rolling
release may not be the same as their development branch).

On the other hand, there are projects which make "supported" releases of
their software. In doing so, they are providing a non-contractual promise
to provide technical support (usually in the form of mailing list
responses or accepting bug reports) for that release. If I have a problem
with that release, I can file a bug against that release and it will be
considered as a viable bug report. If I have a question, they will try to
assist based on the source tree that I am using, rather than saying
something to the effect of "sorry, we can't help until you update to
[current head of branch]." The response may be "yes, that is a known bug
in this release, it has been fixed in the current development branch and
will be shipped out in release X." Now, this next release might not be
released for some time, which leaves me with either the choice of updating
or patching my system (sometimes these patches will be around and
"backported" to stable releases, but often they are not), or waiting for
the next release which will have the fix.

The upshot of all of this is the expectation that the stable release is
expected to work, and any problems encountered with it are completely
unintentional and should not be serious enough to affect the work of most
everyday users. In other words, the bugs that I encounter should not be so
serious that they affect my work in a serious manner. If they do, then I
would expect a release fixing the problem to be released sooner than later
to address the issue.

In other words, I want to have major releases that may change or affect
the way I work (not just bugfixes) to be made relatively infrequently,
whereas I want bugfixes and the like to be released in a manner consistent
with the severity of the bug. These releases are then easily packaged up
for management through the distributions package management tool, and when
a new release is made, whether minor or major, I can simply build the new
release and install the subsequent package.

The point is to have a stable point that distributors of the software can
point to and base their work on. Sure, development is progressing and
improving the software, but those improvements don't have to show up on
our doorsteps immediately.

Put simply, it is the difference between following Slackware releases and
Slackware -current. It's the difference between Slackware in general and
something like Arch Linux. Rolling releases are all well and good, but
they are hardly the solution to everything. Stable release cycles should
be supported and maintained, and it would be nice if Slackware could
include stable TeXLive releases as a part of its distribution rather than
xeTeX. My expectation is that TeXLive should *not* stamp a release as
"stable" unless it really is stable in terms of interface, API,
reliability, complete or at least clear and accurate documentation, as
well as absence of major, showstopping bugs. Ideally, other bugs would
also be gone, but this won't happen. Minor bugs are fine, and there can
always be fixes for those in minor point releases, Slackware will not
necessarily ship those updates, but as Slackware users, and thanks to
Slackware's package manager not getting in our way, we can easily update
to those point releases without affecting our installation, because those
point releases should not affect any of the perceived or expected behavior
of TeXLive, and so any point release update should not cause any change in
behavior other than fixing bugs or problems where the original release
failed to match expected behavior.

[Jim Diamond]

Perhaps I should have asked you what you meant by "stable supported"
in the TL context :-)

I'm not in the position to comment on the goodness or badness of TL's
procedures and policies. However, the *reality* of the situation is
that they make updates to the "current version" of TL frequently.
Whether these updates are released only because of serious bugs or
not, I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that they release updates
for non-serious bugs and possible feature improvements as well. But
in any case, if a collection of these updates matches your notion of
"minor releases", then there are *lots* of minor releases for TL,
although I don't think they would use that terminology.

Your supposition (definition?) that "These releases are then easily

packaged up for management through the distributions package

management tool," might not be that easy in the case of TL, since the
updates are so frequent. Indeed, I assume a good part of their
motivation for creating the "tlmgr update" feature is to make it easy
for people to install the (frequent) updates. Slackware's way of
doing things (i.e., *not* have something analogous to "apt-get update"
(is that the right command?)) is just not going to make this easy.

You say "My expectation is that TeXLive should *not* stamp a release

as "stable" unless it really is stable in terms of interface, API,
reliability, complete or at least clear and accurate documentation, as

well as absence of major, showstopping bugs." A (very) quick perusal
of TL documents didn't reveal to me any claims that anything is
denoted "stable".

In summary, your notions of stable, supported, ..., may all be good,
but the reality seems to be that you can't apply those ideas to TL.
If I am correct about that, then it gets back to the issue of whether
a given Slackware user wants to only upgrade once a year when a new
"major" version of TL is released, or whether a given user wants to
update regularly. Given that the people who offer "support" seem to
want you to try the most recent versions of packages, I'd guess that a
user's best approach is to stay up to date. However, if your use of
TeX is such that you never run into any problems, then updating once a
year may be your best bet.

Cheers.
Jim

[Joost Kremers]

Robby Workman wrote:
> I was referring to the vast majority of Slackware users. I'll admit
> that I don't *know* about either group, but if the core functionality
> of TeXLive changes *that* much from day to day or week to week or
> even month to month, and in a way that the average TeX user will find
> noticeable, I don't think the *real* problem is at all related to how
> it's packaged/installed on a user's system...

well, as a fairly heavy TeX user, i wouldn't say that the *core*
functionality changes that much from day to day or week to week, or even
at all. what changes are individual packages. the core tex programs
(including latex2e) AFAIK don't receive updates other than bug fixes.
main development is going on in lua(la)tex and latex3, both of which are
considered experimental and not really recommended for daily use (luatex
a bit more than latex3, but still...)

the thing about texlive (and similar distributions such as miktex for
windows) is that you shouldn't equate them with a single package in your
average linux distro. rather, it's comparable to the entire distro. the
packages contained it texlive have different maintainers, different
update policies, etc. the texlive project provides the infrastructure
for package maintainers to use and wraps everything up in a system that
is relatively easy to use for end users.

as such, the texlive team has a comparable function to the slackware
team, with the main difference that they are more liberal about which
packages get into the distribution and which updates are included.

for these reasons, any attempt to create a texlive package for a linux
distro is bound to fail. it's like creating a debian package for
slackware: the concept is fundamentally flawed. (the debian team has
tried to deal with this issue and thought it would be a good idea to
split up the texlive distro in a large number of packages. that failed
miserably too, with texlive 2009 (iirc) being the "official" debian tex
package for years...)

what i believe would be the best way for slackware to deal with the
situation after tetex has outlived itself would be to create a smaller
tex package containing only a subset of texlive that contains the just
basic latex functionality. there is is fact such a package for os x
called basictex:

<http://www.tug.org/mactex/morepackages.html>

this slackware tex package shouldn't be called texlive, because that
might lead users to believe that they are in fact installing texlive.
anyone who just needs basic tex functionality can get by with this
tex-core package (or whatever you'd want to call it). users that
need/want a full tex installation can then forego installing
tex-core.txz and download the texlive installer, using tlmgr to keep
up-to-date.

[Robby Workman]

On 2012-10-19, Jim Diamond <Jim.D...@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> wrote:
>
> Perhaps there is a third option in the case of TL, but I only know
> about the two
> - take the initial release of TL2012 and leave it alone until TL2013
> is out, or
> - install TL2012 and do a "tlmgr update --all" whenever you see fit.
> One is stable, one is "supported". Choose your poison.

Have a look at this: https://www.tug.org/texlive/distro.html
I think you'll find that my approach is hardly unique - it
seems to be what most distributions are doing... That page
also points out the "branchYYYY" svn branch that I mentioned.

-RW

[jo...@wexfordpress.com]

On Sep 19, 10:50 pm, Robby Workman <newsgro...@rlworkman.net> wrote:

As a TeX user since the mid 1990's I beg to differ. I use pdftex,
Context MKIV, Luatex etc. These weren't around (except possibly
pdftex) the last time
tetex was updated. This is akin to saying Slack 7 is "good enough."

[jo...@wexfordpress.com]

On Oct 19, 2:33 pm, Jim Diamond <Jim.Diam...@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca>
wrote:
> On 2012-10-18 at 19:27 ADT, Robby Workman <newsgro...@rlworkman.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2012-10-18, Jim Diamond <Jim.Diam...@deletethis.AcadiaU.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2012-10-18 at 16:27 ADT, Robby Workman <newsgro...@rlworkman.net> wrote:

Exactly so. That is the best way to have a reasonably current TeX
installation without much fuss and feathers. Since
tetex is hopelessly obsolete for any serious user of TeX it can be
deleted from Slackware.

TeX is effectively 100% backward compatible. You can take a plain TeX
program from the original manual, key it in , and compile it with
tex filename or even pdftex filename. For my invoices I use a table
macro package from a long-ago TeX variant, TeXsis.
It is still included in the latest TeX distro and still works.

But for current work I am using Context MKIV, a recent variant. It
allows me to use the latest OTF fonts among other things.
Remember, my original suggestion was not to add anything but to delete
Tetex from the Slack distro.

One more thing. When I install the latest TeXlive I always do it from
the command line. There is no need to fuss with a gui. Just follow
the menus.

John Culleton