Mailing List Archive

Future of tetex
This is status report from the TeX department of text-markup, which I
find necessary due to partly sad, partly exiting news :)

So if you don't care about TeX you may skip this post.

The sad news first:

A couple of days ago Thomas Esser (the te in teTeX) announced[1] that he
wont make another release of teTeX, ever. The reason behind this is that
the the source part of teTeX (the source for the binaries) is included
in the TexLive[2] and is maintained there. A second reason is that it
takes to much of his time to prepare a release.

This is sad because teTeX always has been a very stable (if you consider
the mess a TeX distribution normally is). There is a reason why teTeX
has been the default TeX distribution on almost every flavor of Linux.

But it also means that we (Gentoo) should make the transition to TeXLive
(Debian is doing the same thing, and possible many other distributions).
But that leaves us with several problems/questions which needs to be
solved/answered (see below).

Now for the exiting (but time consuming) news:

The road to a stable TeXLive in Gentoo:

1. Stabilize tetex-3.0_p1[3]. We are almost done, there are very few
real bugs left, and tetex-3.0_p1 is already much more stable than
tetex-2 ever was. I hope this will happen in the next month.

2. Transform _all_ the dev-tex packages which currently installs into
/usr/share/texmf to install into the newly introduced
/usr/share/texmf-site. This solves a lot of problems for users which
currently are stuck with old versions of e.g. latex-beamer (due to file
collisions if installed in /usr/share/texmf[4]). But this requires
figuring out how to resolve deps, since many tex packages is included in
the texmf-tree installed with tetex and also has its own package in dev-tex.
We are currently considering using the same approach as with the perl
packages (using new-style virtuals), but I guess thats on hold until it
is okay to introduce additional new-style virtuals?

3. Create a TeXLive ebuild and put it onto ~arch and have ~arch user
switch over.
This requires us to figure out how to create a texmf-tree. In the past
Thomas Esser created a very solid (although containing rather old
versions) texmf-tree with packages taken from ctan[5].
There are several possibilities:
3.1 Create our own texmf-tree (can largely be automated by scripting).
3.2 Use MikTeX package manager[6] which was ported to Linux.
3.3 Use something similar to the g-cpan.pl script used by perl, to
install packages from ctan[7].
I haven't evaluated the possibilities yet, but comments are more than
welcome!

4. Mark TeXLive stable and kick teTeX from the tree.
Here we are talking at least a year into the future (unless text-markup
suddenly gets flooded by new devs).

In the process of creating a TeXLive ebuild I am thinking about making
it much more modular (which seems to be _the_ buzz word at the moment :)
At least I would like to split the TeX source and texmf-tree into
separate ebuilds (no matter what the texmf-tree might look like, see above).
Other possibilities are creating separate ebuilds for most of the
TeXLive distribution, like pdftex, kpathsea, dvipdf*, ... This would
make it much easier for us to locate bugs and fix them, but requires
much more initial work (this actual resembles the creation of our own
TeX distribution).

Comments, suggestions, offers of help, anything would be useful :)

Martin Ehmsen

1: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.tetex.general/1226
2: http://www.tug.org/texlive
3: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124511
4. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94815
5: http://www.ctan.org
6: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=110494
7: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85411
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
On Friday 26 May 2006 13:02, Martin Ehmsen wrote:
> We are currently considering using the same approach as with the
> perl packages (using new-style virtuals), but I guess thats on hold until
> it is okay to introduce additional new-style virtuals?
As long as the name does not clash with the name of the package (perl prefixes
the names with "perl-") you are fine, so if you
have "virtual/tex-latex-beamer" you should be fine :)

I would support this approach btw, especially if you're going with a split way
to add TeX sources, as seems more finegrained :)

> Comments, suggestions, offers of help, anything would be useful :)
Count on me for testing, and for ~amd64 and ~x86-fbsd marking when needed ;)

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://farragut.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE
Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
Martin Ehmsen wrote:
> This is sad because teTeX always has been a very stable (if you consider
> the mess a TeX distribution normally is). There is a reason why teTeX
> has been the default TeX distribution on almost every flavor of Linux.
>
> But it also means that we (Gentoo) should make the transition to TeXLive
> (Debian is doing the same thing, and possible many other distributions).
> But that leaves us with several problems/questions which needs to be
> solved/answered (see below).

I use LaTeX quite extensively in my work. Time allowing I would be happy
to help out more and provide testing on ~amd64. I am currently writing
up my thesis so I could test it out with that!
>
> Now for the exciting (but time consuming) news:
>
> The road to a stable TeXLive in Gentoo:
>
> 1. Stabilize tetex-3.0_p1[3]. We are almost done, there are very few
> real bugs left, and tetex-3.0_p1 is already much more stable than
> tetex-2 ever was. I hope this will happen in the next month.

This is long overdue - again if I can help please let me know. I use
this all the time and have been doing so for the last year. Do you have
a stabilisation tracker bug set up for this yet?
>
> 3. Create a TeXLive ebuild and put it onto ~arch and have ~arch user
> switch over.
> This requires us to figure out how to create a texmf-tree. In the past
> Thomas Esser created a very solid (although containing rather old
> versions) texmf-tree with packages taken from ctan[5].
> There are several possibilities:
> 3.1 Create our own texmf-tree (can largely be automated by scripting).
> 3.2 Use MikTeX package manager[6] which was ported to Linux.
> 3.3 Use something similar to the g-cpan.pl script used by perl, to
> install packages from ctan[7].
> I haven't evaluated the possibilities yet, but comments are more than
> welcome!
>
I would favour option 3.1 personally, and it would be great to keep our
LaTeX packages more up to date as I sometimes have to manually update
these packages.

> 4. Mark TeXLive stable and kick teTeX from the tree.
> Here we are talking at least a year into the future (unless text-markup
> suddenly gets flooded by new devs).
>
> In the process of creating a TeXLive ebuild I am thinking about making
> it much more modular (which seems to be _the_ buzz word at the moment :)
> At least I would like to split the TeX source and texmf-tree into
> separate ebuilds (no matter what the texmf-tree might look like, see above).
> Other possibilities are creating separate ebuilds for most of the
> TeXLive distribution, like pdftex, kpathsea, dvipdf*, ... This would
> make it much easier for us to locate bugs and fix them, but requires
> much more initial work (this actual resembles the creation of our own
> TeX distribution).

It would be great to see a more modular approach to LaTeX, allowing fine
grained control, bug fixing and a more up to date installation.
>
> Comments, suggestions, offers of help, anything would be useful :)

Time allowing I would be willing to help out with the migration and
stabilisation on amd64 at least (I am part of that arch team). My group
uses tetex-3 and we have had very few issues.

Thanks for putting the work in - big changes to LaTeX in Linux!

Thanks,

Marcus
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
On Sat, May 27, 2006 at 11:03:36 +0200, Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> >
> > Now for the exciting (but time consuming) news:
> >
> > The road to a stable TeXLive in Gentoo:
> >
> > 1. Stabilize tetex-3.0_p1[3]. We are almost done, there are very few
> > real bugs left, and tetex-3.0_p1 is already much more stable than
> > tetex-2 ever was. I hope this will happen in the next month.
>
> This is long overdue - again if I can help please let me know. I use
> this all the time and have been doing so for the last year. Do you have
> a stabilisation tracker bug set up for this yet?

Yes, see http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124511

> >
> > 3. Create a TeXLive ebuild and put it onto ~arch and have ~arch user
> > switch over.
> > This requires us to figure out how to create a texmf-tree. In the past
> > Thomas Esser created a very solid (although containing rather old
> > versions) texmf-tree with packages taken from ctan[5].
> > There are several possibilities:
> > 3.1 Create our own texmf-tree (can largely be automated by scripting).
> > 3.2 Use MikTeX package manager[6] which was ported to Linux.
> > 3.3 Use something similar to the g-cpan.pl script used by perl, to
> > install packages from ctan[7].
> > I haven't evaluated the possibilities yet, but comments are more than
> > welcome!
> >
> I would favour option 3.1 personally, and it would be great to keep our
> LaTeX packages more up to date as I sometimes have to manually update
> these packages.

I agree, but the question is to see how far we can automate the process.
CTAN is a really large database and even the MikTeX package manager has
only a fraction of it.

Regards,
/Alexandre
--
Hi, I'm a .signature virus! Please copy me in your ~/.signature.
Re: Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
Gabriel Lavoie wrote:
> Is app-text/texlive usable for now? I only have a basic tetex installation that
> I will need for my master grade at university and I would want to make the
> switch to texlive really fast! Maybe I can help?

No it is not usable right now, hence the mask :-)
The biggest problem (aside from some minor problems with the ebuild) is
figuring out how to provide a texmf tree. The texmf tree that ships with
the current ebuild is several 100 MB, which I think is too much.
I like some way to provide a light, medium and heavy texmf tree. The
problem is not making an ebuild but making the tree it self.
So if you feel like figuring out which tex packages should go into which
of the three trees then I would appreciate it very much! (remember that
there are also deps between the packages).

Martin Ehmsen
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
Gabriel Lavoie wrote:
> I suppose for now that the best way to check the texmf tree dependencies is to
> install TeX Live using the .iso file?

I'm not sure I understand your question...
The tex packages that should go into the three trees is not necessarily
the packages that ships with texlive (the texmf tree that is downloaded
with the current texlive ebuild is the same as the one shipped in the
.iso file), they could just as well come from ctan (or any other place
for that matter, as long as the licenses are clear).
So what one should do is go to ctan and figure out the interdeps between
packages that goes into the texmf trees.

And some of the bigger packages (beamer,...) should _not_ be in the
texmf trees, since we want to be able to upgrade those without making a
new release of the temxf trees (which forces users to download a large
file again).

Martin Ehmsen
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
Tach Gabriel, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)

Gabriel Lavoie schrieb:
> About the texmf tree, is there really many packages that would be
> included in each distributions? Would a modular ebuild system like the
> one used by Gnome (emerge gnome and emerge gnome-lite) and X.org would
> be nice for TeXLive? Each packages in the texmf tree could be updated
> independently if needed and the packages like beamer could be also
> included in the dependencies.

You know the maintenance that will need? Yearly updates of TeXLive
should be sufficient.



V-Li

--
Fingerprint: 68C5 D381 B69A A777 6A91 E999 350A AD7C 2B85 9DE3
http://www.gnupg.org/
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
I have been busy all the summer! Is there any news about the TeXLive ebuild?

About the texmf tree, is there really many packages that would be included in
each distributions? Would a modular ebuild system like the one used by Gnome
(emerge gnome and emerge gnome-lite) and X.org would be nice for TeXLive? Each
packages in the texmf tree could be updated independently if needed and the
packages like beamer could be also included in the dependencies.

Thanks

Gabriel Lavoie

Martin Ehmsen a écrit :
> Gabriel Lavoie wrote:
>> I suppose for now that the best way to check the texmf tree dependencies is to
>> install TeX Live using the .iso file?
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question...
> The tex packages that should go into the three trees is not necessarily
> the packages that ships with texlive (the texmf tree that is downloaded
> with the current texlive ebuild is the same as the one shipped in the
> .iso file), they could just as well come from ctan (or any other place
> for that matter, as long as the licenses are clear).
> So what one should do is go to ctan and figure out the interdeps between
> packages that goes into the texmf trees.
>
> And some of the bigger packages (beamer,...) should _not_ be in the
> texmf trees, since we want to be able to upgrade those without making a
> new release of the temxf trees (which forces users to download a large
> file again).
>
> Martin Ehmsen

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
Is app-text/texlive usable for now? I only have a basic tetex installation that
I will need for my master grade at university and I would want to make the
switch to texlive really fast! Maybe I can help?

Thanks

Gabriel Lavoie

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
I suppose for now that the best way to check the texmf tree dependencies is to
install TeX Live using the .iso file?

Gabriel

Martin Ehmsen a écrit :
> Gabriel Lavoie wrote:
>> Is app-text/texlive usable for now? I only have a basic tetex installation that
>> I will need for my master grade at university and I would want to make the
>> switch to texlive really fast! Maybe I can help?
>
> No it is not usable right now, hence the mask :-)
> The biggest problem (aside from some minor problems with the ebuild) is
> figuring out how to provide a texmf tree. The texmf tree that ships with
> the current ebuild is several 100 MB, which I think is too much.
> I like some way to provide a light, medium and heavy texmf tree. The
> problem is not making an ebuild but making the tree it self.
> So if you feel like figuring out which tex packages should go into which
> of the three trees then I would appreciate it very much! (remember that
> there are also deps between the packages).
>
> Martin Ehmsen

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: Future of tetex [ In reply to ]
Christian,
if you follow the entire thread, you will notice that there is still no
working ebuild for TeXLive. Martin Ehmsen is the maintener of the ebuild
and he is trying to figure out how to split the package so updates would
be smoother and wouldn't require a lot of download in one time since the
TeXLive package is really huge. But now, there is a lack of developpers
for LaTeX in Gentoo as I understood.

Gabriel

Christian 'Opfer' Faulhammer a écrit :
> Tach Gabriel, 0x2B859DE3 (PGP-PK-ID)
>
> Gabriel Lavoie schrieb:
>> About the texmf tree, is there really many packages that would be
>> included in each distributions? Would a modular ebuild system like the
>> one used by Gnome (emerge gnome and emerge gnome-lite) and X.org would
>> be nice for TeXLive? Each packages in the texmf tree could be updated
>> independently if needed and the packages like beamer could be also
>> included in the dependencies.
>
> You know the maintenance that will need? Yearly updates of TeXLive
> should be sufficient.
>
>
>
> V-Li
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list