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

[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.

> 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
>