bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

[Daniel Meißner via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Hi Guix!

The following MWE does not compile with pdflatex using the modular
texlive packages:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{acronym}

\begin{document}
\end{document}
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

It yields the following:

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
$ guix shell texlive-scheme-basic texlive-acronym -- pdflatex acronym-mwe.tex
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.25 (TeX Live 2023/GNU Guix) (preloaded format=pdflatex)
 restricted \write18 enabled.
entering extended mode
(./acronym-mwe.tex
LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1
L3 programming layer <2023-02-22> (/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
Document Class: article 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX document class
(/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size10.clo)) (/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/acronym/acronym.sty

! LaTeX Error: File `suffix.sty' not found.

Type X to quit or <RETURN> to proceed,
or enter new name. (Default extension: sty)

Enter file name: 
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

I think this is due to missing dependencies suffix and xstring which are
required to be installed for acronym to work.  On page 10 of the package
docs [1] it reads

\RequiredPackage{suffix, xstring}

1: https://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/acronym/acronym.pdf

I can provide a patch if desired to add texlive-xstring and
texlive-bigfoot to texlive-acronym’s (propagated-)inputs.  The suffix
package appears to be bundled with texlive-bigfoot.  Do we want to
unbundle it or simply add texlive-bigfoot to the (propagated-)inputs?

Best

-- 
Daniel

bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Daniel Meißner via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes:

> The following MWE does not compile with pdflatex using the modular
> texlive packages:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{acronym}
>
> \begin{document}
> \end{document}
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
>
> It yields the following:
>
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> $ guix shell texlive-scheme-basic texlive-acronym -- pdflatex acronym-mwe.tex
> This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.25 (TeX Live 2023/GNU Guix) (preloaded format=pdflatex)
>  restricted \write18 enabled.
> entering extended mode
> (./acronym-mwe.tex
> LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1
> L3 programming layer <2023-02-22> (/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
> Document Class: article 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX document class
> (/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size10.clo)) (/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/acronym/acronym.sty
>
> ! LaTeX Error: File `suffix.sty' not found.
>
> Type X to quit or <RETURN> to proceed,
> or enter new name. (Default extension: sty)
>
> Enter file name: 
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
>
> I think this is due to missing dependencies suffix and xstring which are
> required to be installed for acronym to work.  On page 10 of the package
> docs [1] it reads
>
> \RequiredPackage{suffix, xstring}
>
> 1: https://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/acronym/acronym.pdf
>
> I can provide a patch if desired to add texlive-xstring and
> texlive-bigfoot to texlive-acronym’s (propagated-)inputs.  The suffix
> package appears to be bundled with texlive-bigfoot.  Do we want to
> unbundle it or simply add texlive-bigfoot to the (propagated-)inputs?

We use dependencies specified in TeX Live itself (as in "texlive.tlpdb"
file), for sanity reasons. There are 4000+ packages; I think it is not
reasonable to grep through their output to find the unspecified
dependencies. It will also be terrible when using some updater, now this
tool can remove propagated inputs.

Most dependencies issues are resolved installing collections of
packages, such as `texlive-collection-latexrecommended'. As a data
point, I only resolve dependencies "manually" when they would otherwise
require me to install `texlive-collection-latexextra', which is just too
big.

AFAIC, I suggest to not fix this, as this is not worth the trouble.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

[Daniel Meißner via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Daniel Meißner via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes:
>

[...]

>> I can provide a patch if desired to add texlive-xstring and
>> texlive-bigfoot to texlive-acronym’s (propagated-)inputs.  The suffix
>> package appears to be bundled with texlive-bigfoot.  Do we want to
>> unbundle it or simply add texlive-bigfoot to the (propagated-)inputs?
>
> We use dependencies specified in TeX Live itself (as in "texlive.tlpdb"
> file), for sanity reasons. There are 4000+ packages; I think it is not
> reasonable to grep through their output to find the unspecified
> dependencies. It will also be terrible when using some updater, now this
> tool can remove propagated inputs.
>
> Most dependencies issues are resolved installing collections of
> packages, such as `texlive-collection-latexrecommended'. As a data
> point, I only resolve dependencies "manually" when they would otherwise
> require me to install `texlive-collection-latexextra', which is just too
> big.
>
> AFAIC, I suggest to not fix this, as this is not worth the trouble.

I see, makes sense.  I am closing this issues then.  Thanks for your
fast reply and your hint to use collections instead.  I sometimes make a
game out of the most minimal Texlive manifest.scm for my TeX writings :D

Best

-- 
Daniel

bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

[Josselin Poiret via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 492 bytes --]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> We use dependencies specified in TeX Live itself (as in "texlive.tlpdb"
> file), for sanity reasons. There are 4000+ packages; I think it is not
> reasonable to grep through their output to find the unspecified
> dependencies. It will also be terrible when using some updater, now this
> tool can remove propagated inputs.

Couldn't we report those missing dependencies upstream then?

Best,
-- 
Josselin Poiret

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 682 bytes --]

bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

[Josselin Poiret via Bug reports for GNU Guix]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 492 bytes --]

Hi Nicolas,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> We use dependencies specified in TeX Live itself (as in "texlive.tlpdb"
> file), for sanity reasons. There are 4000+ packages; I think it is not
> reasonable to grep through their output to find the unspecified
> dependencies. It will also be terrible when using some updater, now this
> tool can remove propagated inputs.

Couldn't we report those missing dependencies upstream then?

Best,
-- 
Josselin Poiret

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 682 bytes --]

bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

[Nicolas Goaziou]

Hello,

Josselin Poiret via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@gnu.org> writes:

> Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:
>
>> We use dependencies specified in TeX Live itself (as in "texlive.tlpdb"
>> file), for sanity reasons. There are 4000+ packages; I think it is not
>> reasonable to grep through their output to find the unspecified
>> dependencies. It will also be terrible when using some updater, now this
>> tool can remove propagated inputs.
>
> Couldn't we report those missing dependencies upstream then?

That's a good idea, indeed. I'm not volunteering to do it, though :)

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

[Bruno Victal]

Hi Josselin,

On 2023-09-14 14:13, Josselin Poiret via Bug reports for GNU Guix wrote:
> Couldn't we report those missing dependencies upstream then?

This can be done, in theory it's nothing too complicated and all it takes
is simply add a DEPENDS.txt file to the repository.
If you're interested in doing this, see [1] and [2] for information.

As Nicolas has pointed out, it's untenable to do an exhaustive listing of
the dependencies so I'd recommend installing some typical collections first
such as `texlive-collection-latexrecommended' and only then report the
missing non-obvious dependencies for inclusion in a DEPENDS.txt to upstream.


[1]: <https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/598696>
[2]: <https://www.tug.org/texlive/pkgcontrib.html#deps>

-- 
Furthermore, I consider that nonfree software must be eradicated.

Cheers,
Bruno.