Re: documentation in TeX Live collections

[Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr>]

Emmanuel Beffara <manu@beffara.org> writes:

> I don't understand how "out" and "doc" are different in this respect. The
> "out" output of a collection meta-package has no content of its own and it
> only serves to gather the "out" outputs of its inputs. Similarly, the "doc"
> output would have no content of its own and only gather the "doc" outputs of
> its inputs. How is that inconsistent?
>
> There may be something I misunderstand about how Guix packages work
> here.

Outputs are used to split files to be installed after building
a package. Since meta-packages do not build anything, there is nothing
to install, and therefore, to split. The default output is enough.

I imagine it would be possible to bend that concept, and, for example,
create a tree of symlinks, pointing to the documentation of the various
propagated packages, that would ultimately be moved to a "doc" output.
AFAICT, however, no package in Guix does this.

Another data point to consider: `texlive-collection-foo' and
hypothetical `texlive-collection-foo:doc' would require to propagate two
different sets of packages, which may be an argument in favor of
creating two different packages in the first place.

Please note that I have no strong opinion on that subject anyway. I hope
experienced TeX Live users can chime in.

>> In any case, I suggest to write a proper bug report for this. Hopefully,
>> someone with better understanding about the implications of GUIX_TEXMF
>> will be able to solve this.
>
> I can do that for the texdoc behaviour.

Great! Thank you.

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou