From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pierre Neidhardt Subject: bug#27217: texlive is too big Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:51:20 +0100 Message-ID: <87o98o4qwn.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> References: <87tw3w7v1m.fsf@elephly.net> <87po1g2g43.fsf@gmail.com> <87fu2chu02.fsf@elephly.net> <87lgc42b7i.fsf@gmail.com> <87va2wdfq8.fsf@gnu.org> <87pnt44zc7.fsf@ambrevar.xyz> <87wonc4rvg.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37998) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ghZol-0005ZI-FA for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:52:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ghZoh-0008NU-2b for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:52:13 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:53745) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ghZoY-0008JD-PC for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:52:03 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1ghZoY-0002M9-CG for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 07:52:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-reply-to: <87wonc4rvg.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: 27217@debbugs.gnu.org > =E2=80=9Cmflogo=E2=80=9D appears to be a different thing though, it doesn= =E2=80=99t contain the > font. I found the =E2=80=98logo=E2=80=99 font in =E2=80=98texlive-fonts-= knuth-lib=E2=80=99 though! >=20 > Now I can=E2=80=99t find the =E2=80=98pplr=E2=80=99 font (actually Adobe= =E2=80=99s Palatino). Ran into the same confusion. All this is specified in the tlpdb, but even = there the difference between mflogo and mflogo-font is confusing: they are two different packages, but they are just one package... (?) > I wouldn=E2=80=99t say it=E2=80=99s useless. Although I=E2=80=99m certai= nly prone to writing > useless code, this importer serves a need and allowed me to successfully > create the many texlive-* packages we have now. >=20 > I=E2=80=99ll admit, though, that it=E2=80=99s the one importer that I lik= e the least :) I'm so sorry for the poor wording, Ricardo, it was uncalled for. (Wrote in= a haste.) What I meant is that it does not solve the current issue of "what = file belongs to what package." It's not just the importer but our current approach to TeXlive that we've g= ot to work out. Again, sorry for the offensive statement, I hope you didn't take offense, n= one was intended. > : I'm more and more convinced that rewriting the texlive-build-system cen= tered > : around texlive.tlpdb would work and is the right approach. >=20 > Could you please outline what this would mean? Sure: if you look at the file, you'll see it's a textual database of all packages with their respective file. A possible solution that we could implement either as a build-system or an importer: lookup the package in th= e tlpdb (e.g. mflogo) and package all the corresponding file from the svn repo. So= unds simple enough. What do you think?