Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
Uwe Grohnwaldt
schrieb Michel Talon <ta...@lpthe.jussieu.fr>:
> Albert Shih wrote:
>
> > I'm just want known if there are any plan to replace teTeX ports
> > (the project as stop) by TeXLive ?
> >
> > I've send long time ago a mail to teTeX maintainer and I don't have
> > any answer.
> >
> > I known that's nothing urgent, but without tex the live is hard ;-)
>
> Well, TeX itself is frozen since many years, so the differences
> between TeTeX and TeXLive are of the order of the infinitesimal. It
> is not like you could not do "happy texing" using TeTeX. Of course
> the migration to TeXLive will have to occur but i understand that it
> is not an ultra hot priority. Personnally i would be happier with a
> distribution much lighter than TeTeX, i think the only progress of
> any interest in all that stuff is pdftex. If only i could put Latex2e
> in the trash can ...
>
>
Hi,
I think there are some changes which are very interresting. One of this
is unicode support through the xetex import to texlive.
So the change to texlive will be important to some people.
Chers,
--
Uwe Grohnwaldt
Max-Planck-Str 2A, 1.03.2
18059 Rostock
Telefon: 0381 - 1 22 48 11 *
Mobil : 0172 - 3 20 92 85 *
Fax : 01212 - 5 - 131 - 79 - 310 *
E-Mail : U...@Grohnwaldt.de
ICQ : 149348486 *
Skype : lando_calr
* nur nach vorheriger Vereinbarung
_______________________________________________
freebs...@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-port...@freebsd.org"
Albert Shih
>
> I think there are some changes which are very interresting. One of this
> is unicode support through the xetex import to texlive.
It's one reason I send the mail.
Actually I already use ISO8859 because....it's the default on FreeBSD. But
many linux use UTF-8 by default. Maybe some day FreeBSD too. And on this
day It's very good to have texlive.
Unfortunaly I'm not TeX Guru and not developper at all. I can help....
I just want to say it's not urgent to have texlive in FreeBSD, but it's
good idea.
The OpenBSD texlive is release
(http://students.dec.bmth.ac.uk/ebarrett/texlive/)
Regards.
--
Albert SHIH
Observatoire de Paris Meudon
SIO batiment 15
Heure local/Local time:
Sam 15 déc 2007 02:10:07 CET
Nikola Lečić
Doug Barton <do...@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007, Nikola Lečić wrote:
[...]
> > I must add that I tried two times to contact two FreeBSD developers
> > who
> > (according to the public sources) seemed to be interested in this;
> > never got a single word of reply. Having in mind that I offered a
> > help, some experience and maintaining/testing availability, I can't
> > understand this. It's very discouraging.
>
> please feel free to take that as a sign that you should take the ball
> and run with it. :)
Well, according to
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-May/040511.html
porting of TeXLive has already been undertaken. :-) The problem is
that it's not possible to get any further information on this work.
But anyway, I don't think I can do it alone, of course. I could
probably create port(s), but the biggest challenge is that so many
other ports depend on teTeX, and re-configuring all dependencies
obviously requires huge experience, computer horsepower and
developers' hands. Therefore a help was offered and sharing future
maintaining load as well:
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-July/042729.html
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2007-August/043453.html
So, once again:
* If any FreeBSD developer is currently working on TeXLive port,
please, can we users know something about it?
* If not, is any FreeBSD developer willing to lead that project,
publicly discuss port's infrastructure/concept, and then give us
(who are happy to help :-)) some tasks?
* Or some user should start porting (and discuss infrastructure
first?) and then developers will jump in?
--
Nikola Lečić :: Никола Лечић
Nikola Lečić
Hiroki Sato <h...@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
=20
[...]
> I have tried to create TeXLive port and have some working results,
> but I cannot commit it because the following issues still remain:
Hiroki, thank you for your reply. Please find some comments and
questions below.
> 1. Compatibility with other packages which uses TeX. Some depend on
> old teTeX structure, some depend on hard-coded directory
> structure, and so on. teTeX in the current ports tree has various
> glues for such software which are not integrated into teTeX yet.
>=20
> 2. Finer-grained package management is needed. Creating a TeXLive
> port as "one very large package" is possible but I do not think it
> would work well. There are many people who do not want to install
> such a large package (TeXLive needs >500MB disk space) for a
> simple use, and who can install it but want to update some
> specific macro packages after that. Also, I want to solve a
> situation that we have print/tex and print/teTeX separately.
Great to hear that you are working on highly fine-grained version
(OpenBSD TeXLive port actually consists of 3 huge chunks +
documentation).
[...]
> Another prototype is based on finer-grained packages---it has
> ports/tex for TeX related ports. The number of packages which
> extracted from TeXLive distribution and created as ports is 1232 (in
> my local tree). And then I created meta-ports that installs
> predefined package sets called "core", "basic", "latex", and "full"
> for example. "core" means Plain TeX + METAFONT + some DVIware,
> "latex" means LaTeX macro set, "basic" means core+latex, and "full"
> includes all other packages (this can be broken down more finely).
>
> And ports that use TeX needs a line like "USE_TEX=3Dbasic" in the
> Makefile as GNOME-related ports do. I think this is the way we have
> to pursue on a long-term basis.
>
> In short, modularization of TeXLive distribution is needed for such a
> way. At first I thought it is not difficult because package
> management information was included in the TeXLive distribution (in
> XML), but I noticed that it was totally broken. So I am in the
> middle of fixing the information.
I'm curious to hear more about your ideas related to this partition of
"full" part: what USE_TEX actually does? Invokes parts of TeXLive
install scripts? For example, if I want to install Omega -- is it one
port or meta-port? -- how the integration happens?
(And BTW, what source are you using for your work? 2007 release or
current SVN version?)
> This is a progress report from the current teTeX maintainer who is
> trying to update TeX in the ports tree to TeXLive. As I explained,
> if we go with the finer-grained package model, over 1000 ports have
> to be added at a time, so testing them should be done in a separate
> tree at least. I hope I will be able to set up a public tree for
> testing and collaborative work this month...
(a) They have so many micro-packages, but as for a lot of software
included, TeXLive behaves like a distro: projects are nearly
independent. For example, TeXLive source can be compiled with ~100
--without-AAAs. Among these AAAs are large projects such as
bibTeX, Aleph/Omega, pdfTeX, pdfeTeX, XeTeX... Can a single separate
port be created for each addition of this kind?
This leads to the following question I'm particularly interested in:
(b) Update of independent projects. I shall take XeTeX as example:
XeTeX-0.996 that is included in TeXLive2007 is very old. New devel
version (0.997) exists for a long time and users are very
interested in it because it's very stable and contains some amazing
features (Graphite support, Unicode math typesetting, etc.).
XeTeX-devel can be compiled against existing TexLive2007, but it
asks for some experience, more than average TeX user has. That's the
space for FreeBSD port: a possibility to have ports such as
print/xetex-devel would be great because some users don't want to
wait 2008 to update it through new TeXLive. This goes for many other
projects which are actively developed. In the case of XeTeX, this
means that we could have:
print/xetex (TeXLive core rebuilt with --with-xetex)
print/xetex-devel (third-party XeTeX source, with independent
install scripts specially tweaked for
FreeBSD port if necessary)
devel/libgraphite (currently used by XeTeX-devel only, but
usable for many other non-TeX projects,
therefore ported and maintained intependently)
Of course, these -devel ports would be a challenge for maintainers,
but it would be great to have some kind of infrastructural
relationship between print/BBB (officially in TeXLive) and
BBB-devel ports.
What do you think about some kind of support like this for replacing
of old parts of "full" part with new versions and how does your
working version behave regarding this?
(BTW, I've recently started creation of print/xetex port which should
have been backed by teTeX. So, it's better to stop that work :-))
--=20
Nikola Le=C4=8Di=C4=87 :: =D0=9D=D0=B8=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=BB=D0=B0 =D0=9B=D0=B5=
=D1=87=D0=B8=D1=9B
Bakul Shah
play with it? As for modularization, I hope you don't go the
extreme of a zillion little pieces but instead break it in a
few pieces to cover about 90% of the use(rs). More pieces
means more things can go wrong.... [just my opinion]
Hiroki Sato
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bakul Shah <ba...@bitblocks.com> wrote
in <200712162022...@mail.bitblocks.com>:
ba> Why not add TeXLive port even as it is, so that people can
ba> play with it? As for modularization, I hope you don't go the
ba> extreme of a zillion little pieces but instead break it in a
ba> few pieces to cover about 90% of the use(rs). More pieces
ba> means more things can go wrong.... [just my opinion]
It is because we cannot make a port of software that is not in
TeXLive. Some localized TeX variants use non-standard software and
sometimes it conflicts ones in TeXLive for example, so a TeXLive port
as it is does not work there (the current teTeX port and the related
ports work, btw). Also, I do not want to bother people who are not
interested in using TeX itself but need to install software which
depends on TeX (not related TeX and just for typesetting a document
during the building stage, for example). I do not like an >500MB
package will be installed when I just want to install a small piece
of software.
Supporting minimal installation is needed for these reasons. One
large package of TeXLive would make people happy for the moment, but
they would notice and suffer from issues of integration with other
ports and consistent upgrading.
Do you think splitting it to small packages will be a big problem? I
realize it takes additional time, but considering pros and cons I
think it is better to do so. If you have any ideas that points to a
bad scenario, please let me know more specific.
--
| Hiroki SATO
----Security_Multipart(Mon_Dec_17_11_02_45_2007_447)--
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBHZdjFTyzT2CeTzy0RApM0AJ0etwP+X+NUFBv0RjuK5P221PFEtgCfZxCi
7zQXdRAclzf0esuEZXAYazk=
=8c71
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
----Security_Multipart(Mon_Dec_17_11_02_45_2007_447)----
Nikola Lečić
Hiroki Sato <h...@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
=20
[...]
> think it is better to do so.
Sorry for interrupting the dialogue, are we speaking of ~1.000 ports?
Personally, as a future heavy user of TeXLive port, I'd like to see it
as modularised as possible, just like X.org. Can you maybe post here
just a list of future ports before you public a full tree for testing?
If it's not possible, does this mean that every, e.g. LaTeX .sty
package is a separate port? And, e.g. that ConTeXt is a port (or more
likely more ports), all libraries included within particular
derivatives, font groups, etc? With lots of meta-ports? If this is so,
it would be amazing IMHO, and in the true spirit of Ports System... I'm
delighted that we'll have this in Ports.
--=20
Nikola Le=C4=8Di=C4=87 :: =D0=9D=D0=B8=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=BB=D0=B0 =D0=9B=D0=B5=
=D1=87=D0=B8=D1=9B
Bakul Shah
> TeXLive. Some localized TeX variants use non-standard software and
> sometimes it conflicts ones in TeXLive for example, so a TeXLive port
> as it is does not work there (the current teTeX port and the related
> ports work, btw). Also, I do not want to bother people who are not
> interested in using TeX itself but need to install software which
> depends on TeX (not related TeX and just for typesetting a document
> during the building stage, for example). I do not like an >500MB
> package will be installed when I just want to install a small piece
> of software.
>
> Supporting minimal installation is needed for these reasons. One
> large package of TeXLive would make people happy for the moment, but
> they would notice and suffer from issues of integration with other
> ports and consistent upgrading.
Thanks for your explanation.
> Do you think splitting it to small packages will be a big problem? I
> realize it takes additional time, but considering pros and cons I
> think it is better to do so. If you have any ideas that points to a
> bad scenario, please let me know more specific.
I don't have a specific example except that xorg is more
painful to build and debug now if something goes wrong on my
system. On one machine I have about 500 ports installed and
over half of them are X related: xorg-*, x libraries, fonts
etc. So the thought of 1000 additional port is quite scary!
I understand you have a tough problem to solve. I just
wondered if there is a simpler alternative, a way to balance
flexibility with simplicity.
Thanks!
Mark Linimon
> Do you think splitting it to small packages will be a big problem?
That many ports would create a significant impact on the build systems,
especially, sparc64, which is not keeping up at all as it is.
mcl
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:02:45AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
>> Do you think splitting it to small packages will be a big problem?
>
> That many ports would create a significant impact on the build systems,
> especially, sparc64, which is not keeping up at all as it is.
>
> mcl
What does the build system do? Does it go to each port one at a time
and do a "make package && pkg_delete -a" or similar?
If so, this would mean that the, for example, xorg-library port would be
remade many, many times.
If this is the case, perhaps there is some way this process could be
streamlined. But I can see the potential difficulties.
Nikola Lečić
Stephen Montgomery-Smith <ste...@math.missouri.edu> wrote:
=20
> Mark Linimon wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2007 at 11:02:45AM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> >> Do you think splitting it to small packages will be a big problem?
> > That many ports would create a significant impact on the build
> > systems, especially, sparc64, which is not keeping up at all as it
> > is.
> > mcl
>=20
> What does the build system do? Does it go to each port one at a time=20
> and do a "make package && pkg_delete -a" or similar?
> If so, this would mean that the, for example, xorg-library port would
> be remade many, many times.
Unlike Xorg, TeXLive ports are mainly high-level/leaf ports. The impact
on other ports will be equal to that of teTeX. The majority of these
"portlets" are actually LaTeX packages, fonts, etc, and does not
interfere with other ports or among themselves very much.
--=20
Nikola Le=C4=8Di=C4=87 :: =D0=9D=D0=B8=D0=BA=D0=BE=D0=BB=D0=B0 =D0=9B=D0=B5=
=D1=87=D0=B8=D1=9B
Parv
wrote Hiroki Sato thusly...
...
> I have tried to create TeXLive port and have some working results,
> but I cannot commit it because the following issues still remain:
>
> on old teTeX structure, some depend on hard-coded directory
> structure, and so on. teTeX in the current ports tree has
> various glues for such software which are not integrated into
> teTeX yet.
>
> TeXLive port as "one very large package" is possible but I do
> not think it would work well. There are many people who do
> not want to install such a large package (TeXLive needs >500MB
> disk space) for a simple use, and who can install it but want
> to update some specific macro packages after that. Also, I
> want to solve a situation that we have print/tex and
> print/teTeX separately.
(finally some news)
Thanks much Hiroki for the update!
I will look forward to the upcoming ports, and if I could help with
testing.
- Parv
--
Trix Farrar
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Dec 16, 2007 at 10:59:55PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Nikola Le??i?? <nikola...@anthesphoria.net> wrote
> 2. Finer-grained package management is needed. Creating a TeXLive
> port as "one very large package" is possible but I do not think it
> would work well. There are many people who do not want to install
> such a large package=20
Have you considered a bsdpan-like system?
Perl has the CPAN module that has been glued to the pkg_* tools so
that installed modules "look like" packages. Could the same kind of
thing be done for CTAN modules?
--=20
John D. "Trix" Farrar __\\|//__ Basement.NET
tr...@basement.net (` o-o ') http://www.basement.net/
-----------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------------
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFHZn+kUn6S0hqD4tsRAubyAKCSxeNELiJEzIjBh5U7/XSFKRupFACfd9Q8
yHwj23eAQz2m30VxWie+lRA=
=JEpr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--liOOAslEiF7prFVr--
Ulrich Spoerlein
> This is a progress report from the current teTeX maintainer who is
> trying to update TeX in the ports tree to TeXLive. As I explained,
> if we go with the finer-grained package model, over 1000 ports have
> to be added at a time, so testing them should be done in a separate
> tree at least. I hope I will be able to set up a public tree for
> testing and collaborative work this month...
> Any comments are welcome. Thanks.
As I'm not doing any work, my vote doesn't count, but please: Creating
2-3 *big* TeXLive ports is certainly wrong, but creating 1000 tiny ports
is equally wrong. Think about the repo bloat and churn introduced by a
"single" software like a LaTeX system. It will slow down everything from
cvs checkout, to index building and pkg_info(1).
Can't you split the TeXLive Distribution up into say 12 ports? Something
minimal that can be used by other ports to typeset documentation (how
common is this, anyway?) and 3-4 big TeXLive ports for the typical TeX
user.
Cheers,
Ulrich Spoerlein
--=20
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool,
than to speak, and remove all doubt.
Rick Voland
> On Sun, 16.12.2007 at 22:59:55 +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
>> This is a progress report from the current teTeX maintainer who is
>> trying to update TeX in the ports tree to TeXLive. As I explained,
>> if we go with the finer-grained package model, over 1000 ports have
>> to be added at a time, so testing them should be done in a separate
>> tree at least. I hope I will be able to set up a public tree for
>> testing and collaborative work this month...
>>
>
> As I'm not doing any work, my vote doesn't count, but please: Creating
> 2-3 *big* TeXLive ports is certainly wrong, but creating 1000 tiny ports
> is equally wrong. Think about the repo bloat and churn introduced by a
> "single" software like a LaTeX system. It will slow down everything from
> cvs checkout, to index building and pkg_info(1).
>
> Can't you split the TeXLive Distribution up into say 12 ports? Something
> minimal that can be used by other ports to typeset documentation (how
> common is this, anyway?) and 3-4 big TeXLive ports for the typical TeX
> user.
>
> Cheers,
> Ulrich Spoerlein
I am also only a user of TeX and friends.
May I suggest some categories for triage?
1) Simple packages like envlab and lettrine are easy to locate and
install afterwards. So, maybe these packages (and others like
additional fonts) don't need to be in the typical TeXLive port for FreeBSD.
2) Binaries for features like xetex and ConTeXt may be difficult to
install outside the assistance of a port. I wish recent, stable
versions of these could be included in a port, maybe the main port.
3) For now, the FreeBSD port for musixtex is incompatible with tetex. I
wish that the various TeXLive components could be designed to be
compatible with each other so that a user could still choose to add
additional features after the initial installation.
These are only suggestions. Thanks for your work maintaining TeX and
friends for FreeBSD.
---
Rick Voland
rpvo...@spamcop.net