[tex-live] Matching TL package setups to my own

Gerben Wierda Gerben.Wierda at rna.nl
Tue Aug 28 08:21:56 CEST 2007

On Aug 28, 2007, at 02:15 , Karl Berry wrote:

>     So, in the end the TLP structure must have enough information to
>     create the behaviour of the installer.
> I think they do right now.  What you're describing is exactly what we
> have always intended to do too in a new version of the installer (and
> the current installer does them already, except package-level  
> selection,
> which I don't think would pose any real technical problem, just ui
> headaches).  All of the options you describe can be supported with  
> what
> we have now, as far as I can see.
> I still don't really see why circular dependencies are "too complex",
> but fine, whatever.  I'll just delete one of them.  Package-level
> dependencies are pretty much random and meaningless anyway, as we've
> discussed.
> I don't understand your "set" and "item" proposal, sorry.  I mean, I
> understand (I think) what you're saying, but I don't see what this
> rather large reorganization buys us, in practice, over what we have  
> now.

If you have dependencies, it is good to either have them full blown  
or not have them at all. I think one should have them full blown, it  
makes for a far better setup and for less difficulties for the user.

> I don't mean to be obstreperous or resistant to good ideas.  I just
> don't understand why what we have now does not suffice for you.

At some level transformation (=use of TLP) becomes too complex to  
maintain, that is my main problem. If it is not pure/clean it is also  
likely to be less predictable and that also leads to more maintenance  
in the long run.

Having a purer setup with leafs (or items, contains actual files) and  
sets (anything above) makes it far easier in the long run to do  

> If we split "Category" into two different attributes, say
>   Category -> Package / Collection / Scheme
>   Location -> TLCore / TLPackage / TLDoc
> would your situation improve?
> With the ultimate intention of getting rid of Location for sure --  
> maybe
> I am being too cautious and it is not really any problem at all.
> (Actually, if we did this, I would start by not having Location and
> seeing if any problems arose.)

I would keep Location because as it is you do want to be able to tell  
where stuff should go (texmf, texmf-dist, texmf-doc) unless you want  
to have everything in just one tree: texmf.

Having logical names for locations (which should be found in a driver  
file so they can change) enables you to rearrange locations later  
without changing the TLP stuff. It also would enable users of TLP to  
more easily have different names, e.g. where in my dist texmf-dist is  
called texmf.texlive to make clear what the source of my dist is.

BTW I find texmf-tldoc or tl-doc better names than texmf-doc. As it  
is now, texmf/doc and texmf-doc suggest they are about the same thing.

Wrt category, I think having pure leafs and non-leafs in the tree is  
the main thing, but having labels for what you want the user select  
at what level (package, scheme, collection) is of course a good thing.



More information about the tex-live mailing list