[tex-live] How about auto-download of classes/styles etc. ?

Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wagner at gmail.com
Mon Oct 13 01:19:48 CEST 2008


2008/10/12  <cfrees at imapmail.org>:
> On Sun 12th Oct, 2008 at 21:40, Niels Kobschaetzki seems to have written:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 9:22 PM,  <cfrees at imapmail.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun 12th Oct, 2008 at 20:38, Zdenek Wagner seems to have written:
>>>
>>>> 2008/10/12 Victor Ivrii <vivrii at gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Norbert Preining <preining at logic.at>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On So, 12 Okt 2008, Edd Barrett wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think what I was asking is, do you think it is a useful idea?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, but good luck implementing it ;-) Or you can ask CS for the
>>>>>> code?
>>>>>
>>>>> Great idea to create a bloody mess: one adds a new package, then this
>>>>> package is snatched but it requires another package which is not on
>>>>> the computer or the newer version of the package which is already
>>>>> there and in turn ... and all this is while one is traveling with no
>>>>> or lousy internet connection and all this just to save a fistful of
>>>>> gigs not sufficient even for  one HD movie
>>
>> <don't implement it because cfr thinks it's not a good idea>
>>
>>> I also don't like things which try to auto download and install
>>> software "of their own accord" and would personally never enable such
>>> an option. (Or would do what I could to disable it.) But the
>>> complications I'm thinking of above are independent of that concern.
>>
>> You wouldn't, I would. As long as you can disable a feature it won't
>> hurt anyone. The only questions which would remain:
>
> I agree. The fact that I personally would want it off is certainly no
> reason not to implement it as an option (default or o/w) if others do.
> The two concerns you cut in quoting me had nothing to do with this
> personal preference, though.
>
> There are two different sorts of possible options here (not mutually
> exclusive):
> 1. an option at install time to install everything or install a slimmed
> down version;
> 2. given a slimmed down version, an option to have automated or manual
> downloads of missing files.
>
> I thought that (2) was being suggested as a solution to the
> offline/lousy connexion issue, which it isn't. For that you need (1).
> Presumably people installing for multiple users would also need the
> options in (1) - at least in many cases.
>
> But I do wonder how it could work with multiple TL installs. What would
> happen if I switched to the previous year's release and typeset a file
> needing an additional package? Would I get the package for the
> appropriate year? I'm not saying there aren't ways of implementing that
> but only that it would be another complication you'd have to take into
> account in designing an implementation.
>
It should be so and the mechanism should be quite clever. It may need
quite a lot of information. Suppose the document contains:

\usepackage{something}[yyyy/mm/dd]

The local disk contains an older version of something.sty. The system
will therefore ask upgrade. So far nice but what if the user misprints
the date and ask a new version that does not exist?

>> 1. Is it possible to implement it?
>> 2. Should it be "on" per default or "off" (for first
>> installers/beginners on would be better, if the majority are non-noobs
>> "off" would be better -- but they got the information of the existence
>> of the option beforehand anyway and watch out in my experience for new
>> options in the installers anyway)
>
> Should which aspect be on or off?
> 2a. Should the default install be to install TL in full or to install a
> slimmer version?
> 2b. For slimmer installations, should automatic download and
> installation be on or off by default?
>
>> 3. What happens when you are offline? (how about an error that the
>> function is not available until you have an internet connection
>> available??btw. I've never seen packages that used much of space.
>> Usually it's just the massive amount of available packages, fonts,
>> binaries etc which take up so much space of a standard install)
>>
>
> Individual installations should be able to avoid this by installing TL
> in full originally, I think. *If* somebody opts for the slimmed version,
> this would clearly be a reasonable way of handling the lack of a
> connexion when trying to download a package.
>
>> And I don't think that this feature would bloat the install in terms
>> that someone would notice it. I guess the implementing question is the
>> biggest one because it should be implemented in a way that the tool
>> you use to call (your)tex can give you feedback.
>>
>
> Wouldn't the idea be to slim down TL? That is, wouldn't it reduce
> "bloat"? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the idea here...
>
> - cfr
>
>> Niels
>>
>



-- 
Zdeněk Wagner
http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz


More information about the tex-live mailing list