[tldistro] Experimental mapping of texlive packages to rpm packages

[pcpa at mandriva.com.br]

> I will answer tomorrow or day after tomorrow, but this is all matter of a
> document I want to write.
>
> Short answer: you are using the fmtutil.cnf (and updmap.cfg and language.dat)
> that ships with the full installation of TL.
> Now if you install only parts of it that cannot work.
> Puttingmy Debian hat on: why don't you look at the solution in Debian, which
> works the same way since 2005 ....?
> You have to create fmtutil.cnf, updmap.cfg, language.dat, language.def and
> language.lua.dat based on the *actually* installed packages!!! This information
> is available in the tlpdb and via
>   TeXLive::TLPDB:: updmap_lines
> or so.
> You *cannot* and *should not* use the config files as shippedin texmf/ of TL!!!

  Yes, that was a sample and first prototype. My latest experimental packages
start with those fully commented, and have %post and %postun that sed/perl
the file in place and comment/uncomment on install/uninstall.
  It generates the scriptlets based on TLPOBJ::*_lines, using this script

http://svn.mandriva.com/viewvc/packages/cooker/texlive-texmf/current/SOURCES/texlive.pl?view=markup

also, since now it defaults to installing texlive-scheme-medium, that means
it can install roughly 600 rpms in a sequence, what would not scale very
well, so I wrote this script to also call on %post and %postun scriptlets

http://svn.mandriva.com/viewvc/packages/cooker/texlive/current/SOURCES/mktexlsr.post?view=markup

but a variant of the script above probably should be used in a different way,
to do a full update only once.

  I did work on updating texlive in Mandriva because there was a mix
of conflicting texlive-* and tetex-* packages, and neither did work
very well.

  Also, I did choose to initially make monolithic texlive packages,
with some magic in Provides/Obsoletes/Conflicts to satisfy
dependencies and be as transparent as possible, while keeping it
as simple as possible, to both, not require a huge amount of work
to maintain, and not leave major problems if somebody else starts
maintaining the package.

  That being said, I am considering to do a proper package splitting,
and no longer use a single texlive-20110705-texmf.tar.xz tarball. Because
right now, if needing to add a single patch, it is required to rebuild
everything.

  Mandriva has a quite good approach for CPAN, where every perl-* package
is from a proper CPAN package, but whle current monolithic texlive packages
are usable, and work for most usages, they are not in a state to be proud
of... So, something that I am considering is to make the packages using

http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/texlive/tlnet/archive

as source of tarballs, and split them using the pattern used by
texlive, and, use tlpkg metadata to create the rpm dependency
information.

> Norbert
> main TL hacker
> main Debian TL hacker
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Norbert Preining            preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
> JAIST, Japan                                    TeX Live & Debian Developer
> DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,
Paulo