[tex-live] (no subject)

[Michael Shell]

On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 23:21:21 GMT
Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:

> Creating something for USB would surely have to be quite different.


Thanks for info Karl.

You know, when I first looked into this, I said to myself, "surely I
can come up with an easy suggestion to get some more space on the DVD".

The ideas that quickly came to mind included:

 1. Use a double layer DVD.
 2. Use compression and/or
 3. Use an improved compression algorithm
    e.g., .xz instead of .gz or .zip.
 4. Increase the compression level setting.

Of course, given the unusually high intelligence and dedication of TUG
members/developers, I quickly realized that all the above had already
been done. Well, I didn't actually check #4 (e.g., xz -9), but by the
time I got to that one, I was willing to bet that already had been done
too (or if not, that it is known the higher RAM requirement of the -9
setting would be problematic on some systems).

Had it been any other group, chances are I would have been able to offer
some quick and useful advice, but no, not in TeX circles. As we say here
in the South, "it ain't that easy 'round them there parts".
LOL!

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 13:59:43 +0900
Norbert Preining <norbert at preining.info> wrote:

> There is no filesystem that is uniformly accepted *AND* which 
> support symbolic links - we need symbolic links because 
> all the Unix-like systems have links for the biggest part of the
> "binaries".


If we had to, I think we could overcome the link issue. Links would
be implemented as text files, maybe with a unique suffix (e.g., .lnk)
whose text contains the path, or rules for the path, to the object
to be linked to. The installer then would detect and interpret these
.lnk files as needed for the given target system during the installation.

But, I have to ask, how does the installer handle the case where the
*target* filesystem of the installation does not support links?
(e.g., FAT32)?


  Kudos,

  Mike