Re: Migration TeX/LaTeX: from teTeX -- TeXlive
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:57:51AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:00:22 +0200, Roland Smith wrote: Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of duplication of effort). I have to add that I think that the chosen strategy (provide a full port and a minimal port) is a good balance between functionality and maintenance workload. In conclusion, that could be said about many other software that brings its own package management. More or less. Not all of those work equally well as tlmgr or the ports tree. Of course, LaTeX is a big and complex beast that TeXLive manages well (instead of the system-provided tools for managing the ports tree). In my opinion, a good _integration with_ the ports tree is important, so dependencies will be resolved properly (and you won't end up havong both TeXLive _and_ teTeX on your system for no particular need). The problem is that if you hand over the management of the TeXLive install to tlmgr, the ports tree doesn't know and cannot know what is provided and what is depended on... On the other hand, this might introduce demands of other software compilations to move their management out of the system's range, so we end up micro-managing many different sets of software in their own specific way, abandoning the centralized means of maintaining our software... There is indeed no silver bullet. Since TeXLive is very complete and self-contained, I don't have other ports that depend on TeX. It's the port maintainers' task to take care of the proper declaration of dependencies, and for system tools to handle them. I don't think it is a big problem to make this consistent with how TeXLive handles things. It is not that simple. After every tlmgr run, you'd have to generate a new plist for the port. Since TeXLive is contained in one directory tree (/usr/local/texlive/year) that part is relatively simple. But tlmgr can also install scripts or binaries. So after every tlmgr run, the list of binaries that the port provides and the list of libraries or interpreters (ports) that it requires would have to be updated. This is not trivial. And if you ever run tlmgr outside of the port Makefile, the installed port's information must be assumed to be out of date. Roland -- R.F.Smith http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpr0OQulLtEk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Migration TeX/LaTeX: from teTeX -- TeXlive
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:33:15 +0200, Roland Smith wrote: On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:57:51AM +0200, Polytropon wrote: On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:00:22 +0200, Roland Smith wrote: Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of duplication of effort). I have to add that I think that the chosen strategy (provide a full port and a minimal port) is a good balance between functionality and maintenance workload. This is a good approach for all cases where no custom configuration (being done by tlmgr) has been done, and it should work for most scenarios, I assume. In conclusion, that could be said about many other software that brings its own package management. More or less. Not all of those work equally well as tlmgr or the ports tree. Of course; think about pip, npm, and the like. The preferred goal of using tlmgr from the TeXLive distribution instead of installing it with the ports tree (or pkg) would be that it somehow at least records the existence of the TeXLive installation on the system. This causes ports depending on it _not_ to attempt any futile additional installation. Of course, LaTeX is a big and complex beast that TeXLive manages well (instead of the system-provided tools for managing the ports tree). In my opinion, a good _integration with_ the ports tree is important, so dependencies will be resolved properly (and you won't end up havong both TeXLive _and_ teTeX on your system for no particular need). The problem is that if you hand over the management of the TeXLive install to tlmgr, the ports tree doesn't know and cannot know what is provided and what is depended on... Correct. As I said, I'd suggest tlmgr could honor that case if it is run on FreeBSD and update the system records accordingly, so port management and pkg can work with that foreign installation as if it would have been a valid installation done with the system's default means. On the other hand, this might introduce demands of other software compilations to move their management out of the system's range, so we end up micro-managing many different sets of software in their own specific way, abandoning the centralized means of maintaining our software... There is indeed no silver bullet. True. However, a good integration with keeping an eye on the most obvious and important side effects could help. For example, the TEX_DEFAULT setting in /etc/make.conf is already a good beginning to select between teTeX and TeXLive. Maybe something similar could be added by tlmgr to satisfy port and package management tools with the illusion that everything went fine? :-) Since TeXLive is very complete and self-contained, I don't have other ports that depend on TeX. It's the port maintainers' task to take care of the proper declaration of dependencies, and for system tools to handle them. I don't think it is a big problem to make this consistent with how TeXLive handles things. It is not that simple. After every tlmgr run, you'd have to generate a new plist for the port. Since TeXLive is contained in one directory tree (/usr/local/texlive/year) that part is relatively simple. But tlmgr can also install scripts or binaries. So after every tlmgr run, the list of binaries that the port provides and the list of libraries or interpreters (ports) that it requires would have to be updated. This is not trivial. I recognize that complicated task, but I would like to say that solving that problem (or at least possible annoyance) would really benefit both worlds - TeXLive can be managed with tlmgr _and_ the system software records will keep working properly. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Migration TeX/LaTeX: from teTeX -- TeXlive
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:22:12PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: I use for my day to day work teTeX, but I run more and more into several limitations due to the fact, teTeX isn't any more (and regretably) maintained/developed by Th. Esser (that is what I know). Upstream teTeX has indeed been deprecated in favor of TeXLive. Well, TeXlive is now in the ports tree, but I had recently on a server, on which I tried to migrate, massive problems with the most recent CURRENT, where gcc is completely gone (luckily) and converters/iconv has been removed. I can not clearly say what causes the problems, since there seem to be remains of teTeX in the system, but they are needed for some essential facilities and I do not dare ripping them off. Was your machine updated from 9.x to CURRENT? In that case you should really remove _all_ ports and re-install them. That is the only way to get rid of old junk when switching to a new major version. Before I start time consuming experiments, I'd like to ask whether there is a smooth way of migration. And for that, please enlighten me how I can extract those ports installed and needed by teTeX (a kind of port-traceback of required ports) and delete them, as far as they do not share common being required by xxx port, too. Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of duplication of effort). I installed TeXLive using its own installer long before it was present in the ports tree. Since TeXLive is very complete and self-contained, I don't have other ports that depend on TeX. I am certain that TeXLive has pre-built binaries for FreeBSD 9, but I don't know about CURRENT. To see which ports require (parts of) teTeX, use `pkg_info -Rx tetex` Roland -- R.F.Smith http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/ [plain text _non-HTML_ PGP/GnuPG encrypted/signed email much appreciated] pgp: 1A2B 477F 9970 BA3C 2914 B7CE 1277 EFB0 C321 A725 (KeyID: C321A725) pgpwUlqhM9g4C.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Migration TeX/LaTeX: from teTeX -- TeXlive
On 09/15/2013 02:00 PM, Roland Smith wrote: Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of duplication of effort). I installed TeXLive using its own installer long before it was present in the ports tree. Since TeXLive is very complete and self-contained, I don't have other ports that depend on TeX. +1 My TeX dependency and maintenance problems all but disappeared when I moved to the freestanding TeXLive installation. I run a nightly cron job to get the latest updates via tlmgr and it works like a charm. -- Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Migration TeX/LaTeX: from teTeX -- TeXlive
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:00:22 +0200, Roland Smith wrote: Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of duplication of effort). In conclusion, that could be said about many other software that brings its own package management. Of course, LaTeX is a big and complex beast that TeXLive manages well (instead of the system-provided tools for managing the ports tree). In my opinion, a good _integration with_ the ports tree is important, so dependencies will be resolved properly (and you won't end up havong both TeXLive _and_ teTeX on your system for no particular need). On the other hand, this might introduce demands of other software compilations to move their management out of the system's range, so we end up micro-managing many different sets of software in their own specific way, abandoning the centralized means of maintaining our software... I installed TeXLive using its own installer long before it was present in the ports tree. It should maybe be possible (and encouraged?) to use a concept like using the ports tree for invoking the TeXLive custom installer, so you don't have to manually download and extract stuff, a simple make install from the ports tree would do that for you. However, the TeXLive installer co-operates well with FreeBSD, so it's not a big problem to get TeXLive installed and running. Since TeXLive is very complete and self-contained, I don't have other ports that depend on TeX. It's the port maintainers' task to take care of the proper declaration of dependencies, and for system tools to handle them. I don't think it is a big problem to make this consistent with how TeXLive handles things. I am certain that TeXLive has pre-built binaries for FreeBSD 9, but I don't know about CURRENT. It would be even more greaterer to have pkg add texlive working, performing the download, and installing the FreeBSD binaries and libraries as needed, while keeping the system records intact. :-) To see which ports require (parts of) teTeX, use `pkg_info -Rx tetex` Plus `pkg_info -Rx teTeX` because of the way it is spelled. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Migration TeX/LaTeX: from teTeX -- TeXlive
I use for my day to day work teTeX, but I run more and more into several limitations due to the fact, teTeX isn't any more (and regretably) maintained/developed by Th. Esser (that is what I know). Well, TeXlive is now in the ports tree, but I had recently on a server, on which I tried to migrate, massive problems with the most recent CURRENT, where gcc is completely gone (luckily) and converters/iconv has been removed. I can not clearly say what causes the problems, since there seem to be remains of teTeX in the system, but they are needed for some essential facilities and I do not dare ripping them off. Before I start time consuming experiments, I'd like to ask whether there is a smooth way of migration. And for that, please enlighten me how I can extract those ports installed and needed by teTeX (a kind of port-traceback of required ports) and delete them, as far as they do not share common being required by xxx port, too. Please CC me, I'm not subscribing this list. Regards and thanks, Oliver Hartmann signature.asc Description: PGP signature
