[tex-live] Updating packages over the internet a la MiKTeX

[Gerben Wierda]

On Jun 6, 2004, at 14:28, Sebastian Rahtz wrote:

> Gerben Wierda wrote:
>
>>
>> Which implies that MiKTeX's basic repository is two steps away from 
>> CTAN (TL being the first step). Anyway, this sounds like a far from 
>> ideal situation.
>>
> why? do you want Christian to do the same work that we do, in deriving 
> TDS from CTAN? it makes sense to
> do that in once place only

I am not suggesting theat Christian should use CTAN as is now.

It makes sense to have the archive in one place. I agree that 
versioning is important. However, as it is now, *CTAN* is the main 
source for packages, without versioning afaik, TL is built from there 
and then makes it TDS conformant and versions it (maintenance by hand).

It could be a lot simpler if we had one repository with versioning and 
'quality control' (read TDS conformance). Or in other words, CTAN is 
only usable for geeks (read the install docs, run scripts, makefiles, 
etc) but a true repository could be used automatically by software 
without simple users being confronted with technical stuff. A bit like 
the MiKTeX cache in CTAN is.

>> Shouldn't we go for one TDS-compliant repository (read: CTAN which is 
>> mirrored everywhere) and have the TPM files included in CTAN? That 
>> way we could remove one repository alltogether and TL could draw 
>> directly from CTAN without having to maintain its own Master tree 
>> (except as a copy for building the images).
>
> CTAN is welcome to maintain a daily snapshot of the TL package tree; 
> the thing has to be maintained _somewhere_, after all, in a version 
> control system. thats all TL is, really

Not really, because you also edit stuff and make it TDS conformant and 
you add the TPM's. And besides, it is like I maintain an archive of 
software but only in the "current state", then you draw a copy, edit it 
and add versioning. You suggest then that I should then again mirror 
your result. My idea woul dbe to consolidate that all in one 
repository. It would mean only one place to maintain, not two.

The situation is now the opposite of logical and it results in 
maintenance in more than one place. That is a waste of energy.

G