| 1 |
On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 20:07:07 +0200 |
| 2 |
Jonas Stein <jstein@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > [...] |
| 5 |
> >> This is not a very nice solution, but it works so far. One |
| 6 |
> >> difficulty is, that there is no 1:1 relation between the texlive |
| 7 |
> >> distribution and dev-texlive/* at the moment. |
| 8 |
> > There is a 1:1 relation. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> A full installation of TeXLive installs packages, which are in |
| 11 |
> dev-tex/* and dev-texlive/* on gentoo. |
| 12 |
> On the other hand single packages are bundled some times. |
| 13 |
> Some programs/packages can be found in dev-tex/* and dev-texlive/* |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I remember, that I last we had for example dev-tex/notoccite in the |
| 16 |
> tree and dev-texlive/texlive-latexextra including shipped the same, |
| 17 |
> but newer files. |
| 18 |
> This is what I meant with "no 1:1 relation" |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The idea with dev-tex/* packages is that they can be split out of |
| 21 |
texlive and installed/updated independently as long as they are |
| 22 |
actively maintained. While you might have a need for specific updates |
| 23 |
on some packages, I seriously doubt you need (and can find the manpower |
| 24 |
to maintain) a live ebuild for the whole CTAN and can live with yearly |
| 25 |
texlive updates. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
The notoccite example is what happens over the years: package is left |
| 28 |
unmaintained, texlive catches up and the package becomes useless. |
| 29 |
Worse: if done properly it will overlay the more recent version from |
| 30 |
texlive! Those packages should be reported and removed (or updated). |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> >> How can we enable our users to run a recent TeXLive in a clean |
| 34 |
> >> way? |
| 35 |
> > /usr/local/share/texmf has been supported by texlive on Gentoo from |
| 36 |
> > day one. You can use that. It's an overlay that takes precedence on |
| 37 |
> > anything else, so per the above, you lose all the QA & testing done |
| 38 |
> > behind the scenes if you use this. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> And packages which depend on a specific LaTeX package will not |
| 41 |
> install. So the user has to provide a package.provided list, which is |
| 42 |
> not so nice to maintain for so many packages. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
They will install, only they will pull older unused files from |
| 45 |
texlive. As said above, the proper way to avoid this is to step up as |
| 46 |
maintainer of some dev-tex/* packages, fix the deps to add a || or |
| 47 |
(probably after convincing me it's worth it because the package is |
| 48 |
updated very frequently) remove it entirely from texlive and switch the |
| 49 |
deps. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Alexis. |
Archives