[tex-live] textlive seems to ignore top of home tree

[hometreetexlive.9.virgilinux at dfgh.net]

--- On Wed, 7/21/10, Reinhard Kotucha - reinhard.kotucha at web.de <+hometreetexlive+virgilinux+e9c78de28a.reinhard.kotucha#web.de at spamgourmet.com> wrote:

> From: Reinhard Kotucha - reinhard.kotucha at web.de <+hometreetexlive+virgilinux+e9c78de28a.reinhard.kotucha#web.de at spamgourmet.com>
> Subject: Re: [tex-live] textlive seems to ignore top of home tree (hometreetexlive: message 3 of 13)
> To: hometreetexlive.9.virgilinux at dfgh.net
> Cc: tex-live at tug.org, "Akira Kakuto" <kakuto at fuk.kindai.ac.jp>
> Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 1:03 AM
> On 20 July 2010 hometreetexlive.9.virgilinux at dfgh.net
> wrote:
> 
>  > --- On Mon, 7/19/10, Akira Kakuto - kakuto at fuk.kindai.ac.jp
> wrote:
>  > > > I would strongly advocate that
>  > > the system default behaviour (subject to
> overruling by the
>  > > administrator) should be that it finds by
> default either 
>  > > > TEXMFHOME/tex/myclass.cls OR 
>  > > > TEXMFHOME/myclass.cls
>  > > 
>  > > We can use TEXMFHOME for various kinds of files,
> fontmap
>  > > files, font
>  > > encoding files, TeX macros, configuration files,
> ...
>  > > I strongly recommend to follow the TDS:
>  > > Please put LaTeX macros under
> $TEXMFHOME/tex/latex, and
>  > > don't use the top directory for them.
>  > 
>  > Hi, Akira:
>  > Apparently I didn't explain myself well in my
> previous email. Let
>  > me try again.
>  > 
>  > 
>  > I have also followed your kind suggestion of setting
> the
>  > environment variable TEXINPUTS=TEXMFHOME.  Even
> though I already
>  > know that the subdirectory structure of TEXMFHOME is
> a requirement,
>  > I prefer that the system searches for classes at the
> top of
>  > TEXMFHOME in case I eventually forget about the
> subdirectory
>  > requirement-- which is exactly what the system do
> with the
>  > directory where the source latex file is located.
> 
> You ask for changing the behavior of the whole system only
> because you
> eventually forget something?  Are you serious? 
> If you fear that you
> forget something, just write it down.

You misunderstood. I have ALREADY implemented Akira's suggestion, so that if I ever forget that the TEXMFHOME subdirectory structure is now a requirement, the system will still find a package that I may have placed at the top of the home tree. 

I need nothing. This discussion is for the benefit of those who do not YET know about the mandatory subdirectories.

>  > So, from a selfish viewpoint, I am covered.
>  > 
>  > Now, considering that every day new people come into
> LaTeX, and
>  > that placing a class file at the top of TEXMFHOME has
> been
>  > recognised (even in this very thread) as a common
> mistake, one has
>  > to consider the possibility that other people will
> make the same
>  > mistake (as egregious as it may be). And these people
> may waste
>  > valuable time searching for a "solution" to their
> "problem" : LaTeX
>  > will not find the file placed at the root of
> TEXMFHOME. What to do
>  > about it?
> 
>  > Those in a position of power can do one of two
> things: 
> 
>  > 1) Nothing... afterall it is those users fault that
> they don't know
>  > that a TEXMFHOME subdirectory structure (even if only
> for one (1)
>  > file) is required... Even if those users jointly
> waste lot of
>  > valuable time because of this... so what... it is
> their fault
>  > anyway. Sooner or later they'll figure it out, and
> they would have
>  > learned their lesson.
...
> 
>  > 2) While the above approach is appealing, a radically
> different
>  > approach is also possible... Even though it is
> technically the
>  > users fault not knowing about the required
> subdirectory structure,
>  > the powerful people could still try to save thosese
> users valuable
>  > time... after all, their wasted time does constitute
> a "social
>  > cost", and if one can prevent such waste by doing a
> minor thing
>  > that won't bother anyone, why not?
> 
> You are discussing a very special case.  Usually users
> want to install
> whole packages, including documentation, examples, and
> sources.  Then
> a flat directory structure doesn't make sense
> anymore.  Furthermore,
> many packages provide files like README and
> manual.pdf.  You cannot
> safely install more than one package in a single
> directory.

No, the use case I am thinking of is imho the most common these days... the user only needs to install the cls or sty file in the home tree because,
(a) a new version of the package addresses a nagging bug, but the system administrator does not want to deal with it until a major upgrade is performed, and the user does not wish to wait, or
(b) a slightly modified version of the cls/sty file is available (done by the user, a friend, colleague, etc) to meet certain special need and the user wants to install the slightly modified file in his/her home tree.

In both cases, the package "support" files are already available in the "main tree" and need not be re-installed.

I believe the above use cases are the most prevalent these days, because as storage has become plentiful, installed TeX systems tends to be very rich in terms of the packages they provide.

Virgil