Missing files in TL25

[Mikael Sundqvist]

Hi Max,

On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 1:31 PM Max Chernoff <tex at maxchernoff.ca> wrote:
>
> Hi Mikael,
>
> On Thu, 2025-02-27 at 08:57 +0100, Mikael Sundqvist wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:10 PM Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >     1. The source of luametatex.
> > >
> > > As Max implied, it will ultimately be in Master/source like all the
> > > other compiled sources. If you think users really need it in the
> > > main distribution, I suppose I could be convinced to include it there.
> >
> > I do not have strong opinions here, but was merely surprised that it
> > was taken out while some other c-files are there, but maybe there is a
> > difference between an engine and some kind of helper program.
>
> Well yes, there are some files that end in ".c", but if you look closer
> at them, most of them don't really "count":
>
>     $ cd /usr/local/texlive/2025/texmf-dist/ && find . -name '*.c'
>
>     ./doc/generic/docbytex/base.c
>     ./doc/generic/docbytex/cosi.c
>     ./doc/generic/docbytex/main.c
>     ./doc/generic/docbytex/win.c
>     ./doc/generic/c-pascal/prog/sun.c
>     ./doc/latex/bmstu/examples/inc/lst/main.c
>     ./doc/latex/codebox/test.c
>     ./doc/latex/dickimaw/src/thesis/listing-samples/helloworld.c
>     ./doc/latex/dickimaw/src/thesis/listing-samples/sqrt.c
>     ./doc/latex/pygmentex/pygmentex_demo.c
>
> These files are the sources for listings typeset in the included
> documentation, not actually files that are meant to be ran/compiled.
>
>     ./doc/cstex/cspsfonts-gen/kernoff.c
>     ./doc/fonts/libertine/g2ntotex.c
>     ./doc/generic/t2/etc/t2filter.c
>     ./doc/generic/xypic/support/pnmrawtopcropwhite.c
>     ./source/latex/cjk/utils/pyhyphen/pinyin.c
>
> These are specialized files that the package authors happened to include
> in their package on CTAN, not tools that are actually compiled for TeX
> Live (or that would be useful for a general audience).
>
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/complex-memory.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/empty-main.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/fibonacci-rec.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/float.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/func-ptr.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/mandelbrot.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/mul.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/printf.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/shift.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/string.c
>     ./source/latex/avremu/test-suite/sum-rec.c
>
> Fascinating package, but if you read the documentation, I think that
> you'll agree that this doesn't really count :)
>
>     ./source/latex/bengali/beng.c
>     ./source/latex/fancynum/tables.c
>     ./source/latex/otibet/oct2otp.c
>     ./source/latex/sanskrit/skt.c
>     ./source/latex/bibarts/bibsort.c

I did not check them all, but I happened (on linux) to get

./texmf-dist/doc/latex/bibarts/bibsort.exe

when doing a full install. That looks a bit weird, and it also looks
out of place if it should be installed at all.

>     ./source/latex/splitindex/splitindex.c
>
> Theoretically useful tools, but there are no binaries in TL for any of
> these (and most of these are extremely old, so I'm not even sure if
> they'd all compile).
>
>     ./source/latex/axodraw2/axohelp.c
>
> Ok, this one is the source for a binary in TL. I guess this should be
> moved to where the rest of the sources are? Karl?
>
> > >     2. The typescript and goodie files for some fonts, including Lucida
> > >     (distributed by tug) and the koeielettersot are missing. For Lucida,
> > >     that is the files type-imp-lucida.mkiv and lucida-math.lfg.
> > >
> > > Both are nonfree fonts. The TL policy, following that of other free
> > > distributions, has always been not to include files whose only purpose
> > > is to support use of nonfree fonts (or programs, or whatever), even if
> > > they themselves are released under a free software license.  I don't
> > > always catch everything, but that's the intent.
> >
> > I must say I do not understand the reasoning behind this. I think it
> > would be much more helpful for the users if those Lucida typescript
> > files could be there. For users not having the fonts, these cannot do
> > any harm.
>
> Personally, I also find the policy a little bit odd, but:
>
> 1. Most of the downstream Linux distros have the same policy, so this
>    makes it much easier for them to package TL.

I thought TUG decided what goes into TL. (In this case we also talk
about a font that is distributed by TUG, which to me makes it even a
bit more confusing.)

>
> 2. This has been the policy forever (as far as I'm aware, at least), so
>    it's "easiest" to not change it.
>
> 3. There are very very few packages/files on CTAN that are excluded from
>    TL solely due to this policy, so there's not really much reason to
>    change it.

If so, then why just these few ConTeXt files that only _mention_ filenames

>
> > A few
> > examples that are somewhat similar to the Lucida typescript files:
> > adobe.map, linot-cd.map, yandy.map.
>
> Those are more of a database of all known fonts (at the time) rather
> than actual support files for those fonts. This is a pretty arbitrary
> justification though, but most of the files there are older than I am,
> so a random post-hoc rationalization is the best that I can do.

The typescript are essentially the same functionality, mapping fonts.

>
> > If the problem is that the files are there only to support a
> > commercial font, we could either add something to them so that is not
> > the case, or simply join them with some non-commercial font. But I
> > hope we agree that does not make any sense.
>
> That would probably make things worse since then we'd either have to
> remove the commercial parts or (most likely) exclude the file entirely.
> Minor code additions or incidental support for commercial software is
> tolerated, but if a file contains substantial code that exclusively
> works with commercial software, then that's a problem.

If you grep for a few commercial fonts, you will find a lot mixed into
other innocent-looking files. For example AdobeSongStd, Sabon, Optima,
GillSans, ...

>
> So adding a half-dozen lines that special-cases a commercial font to one
> of the font-XXX.mkxl files would probably be fine, but just
> concatenating all the font goodie files together so that the file also
> contains support for free fonts wouldn't be okay.

We do not see a real difference between the goodie files and, say,
map+tfm files (that for instance implement a slanted or extended
font).

Let me emphasize once more: I do not suggest any file to be removed,
but consistency would be a good thing. We need to be able to explain
the logic to users.

Best, Mikael