FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-07-2008, 02:44 AM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default TeXLive 2008 in F10?

Are there any plans to include TeXLive 2008 in F10? Currently a
preview is available, which is essentially a release candidate. I
works fine for me on F9, but I have not packaged it.

I understand that the new TeXLive 2008 installer and packaging system
is a lot of work to deal with, but TeXLive includes LuaTeX, which is
the designated successor to pdfTeX, being developed by the same people
that maintain pdfTeX, which won't get any signifiicant new features.
So, for all practical purposes LuaTeX is the "new TeX".

LuaTeX can already use OpenType fonts (towards which Fedora is
moving), although not for math for which there are no usable *free*
Unicode fonts available right now (the only usable one being Cambria
Math from MS). There is no OpenType support planned for pdfTeX, so
it's important to get users exposed to LuaTeX as early as possible,
and Fedora is a good way of doing this

The entire TeXLive 2008 system uses a new kpathsea replacement written
in Lua, which is *many* times faster the original. This results in
major speed improvements for all TeX programs.

The "packetization" of TeXLive, plus the support in LuaTeX for
OpenType fonts should make the TeX fonts mess (bug 456580) a more
tractable problem, even though it won't solve it right away.

Also, TeXLive 2008 includes lcdf-typetools, which I was planning to
package separately - the package has been orphaned around FC6 or so.

The main issue that I see is how to deal with 1Gb+ of TeXLive 2008
packages (over 1000). Perhaps something similar to cpan2rpm is in
order?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-07-2008, 11:00 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default TeXLive 2008 in F10?

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 05:44:37AM +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
>
> The "packetization" of TeXLive, plus the support in LuaTeX for
> OpenType fonts should make the TeX fonts mess (bug 456580) a more
> tractable problem, even though it won't solve it right away.

Hopefully it will help, espeicially for the issue of doing updates
before the next texlive release, but it also means that the packaging
certainly needs to be modified.

> Also, TeXLive 2008 includes lcdf-typetools, which I was planning to
> package separately - the package has been orphaned around FC6 or so.

Unless there is a specific reason to include lcdf-typetools from
texlive, it should be packaged separately.

> The main issue that I see is how to deal with 1Gb+ of TeXLive 2008
> packages (over 1000). Perhaps something similar to cpan2rpm is in
> order?

Even something similar to cpan2rpm would certainly be too much work
too maintain all the packages, in my opinion. It could be very nice
to have something like that for packages that are not essential, though.
I think that a core with most of what is needed to do normal documents
if possible in any language as long as fonts are here is better, and
package separately ctan stuff that is additional.

Anyway I think that it would be nice to have texlive 2008 packages as
soon as possible, and I'll have a look if somebody takes the lead, but I
haven't time to prepare something myself.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-07-2008, 11:11 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default TeXLive 2008 in F10?

On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 05:44:37AM +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
>
> The "packetization" of TeXLive, plus the support in LuaTeX for
> OpenType fonts should make the TeX fonts mess (bug 456580) a more
> tractable problem, even though it won't solve it right away.

Also, do you know if this release allows for the more granularity for
updmap.cfg, fmtutil.cnf?

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-09-2008, 06:54 AM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default TeXLive 2008 in F10?

I don't know for sure, but my educated guess is no.

On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Patrice Dumas <pertusus@free.fr> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 05:44:37AM +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
>>
>> The "packetization" of TeXLive, plus the support in LuaTeX for
>> OpenType fonts should make the TeX fonts mess (bug 456580) a more
>> tractable problem, even though it won't solve it right away.
>
> Also, do you know if this release allows for the more granularity for
> updmap.cfg, fmtutil.cnf?
>
> --
> Pat
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-09-2008, 08:35 AM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default TeXLive 2008 in F10?

That file Jonathan pointed me to is a converter from the old TeXLive
tpm format, which is now obsolete. The guy that wrote that script,
Norbert Preining, is one of the principal authors of the new TeXLive
packaging system. Too bad he doesn't dig Fedora.

The TeXLive folks are pretty serious with this installer. They've got
an API, but the only complete bindings are in, cough, Perl. There's a
talk here that describes some of the API and more importantly the new
package structure; skip the incoherent part until Norbert starts
talking - you'll see a slide with his name when that happens around
minute 19: [http://www.river-valley.tv/conferences/bachotex2008/#0104-Reinhard_Kotucha].
His sildes are here:
[http://www.logic.at/staff/preining/talks/bachotek08-talk.pdf]. I'm
summarizing the essential points from the talk below.

A single package is described by a file ending in ".tlpobj", which is
generated starting from a ".tlpsrc", which is an auto-filled spec
basically because it can be as simple as the package name; the missing
info is pulled from CTAN. The ".tlpsrc" can use complex regexp patters
to describe the files, but AFAICT the ".tlpobj" is equivalent to a rpm
manifest in that it contains an exact file list, dependencies and a
post install script; you have license info too. The key slide (for us)
from the talk is the one describing the fields of a tlpobj:
[http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/tlpobj_fields.PNG]. It looks good
enough to make a rpm from it! As you can see TeXLive versions the
stuff from CTAN in their own svn. This is quite useful for us because
stuff from CTAN is often an unversioned pain. An example tlpobj:
[http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/tlpobj.PNG]. Another one that goes
with the quote "this is something new - we have dependencies":
[http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/tlpobj2.PNG]. They also have a
complete database by concatenating all the ".tlpobj" files in the file
"texlive.tlpdb". The API from 10,000 feet:
[http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/tlpobj_API.PNG]. A 5-page paper that
gives a bit more detail than my paragraph:
[http://www.logic.at/staff/preining/pubs/guit07.pdf]. I was unable to
find the API documentation on the net however; it's probably in their
svn somewhere. If you have any luck, let me know.

Another bit of relevant info from the talk is that there are about
1500 packages (more than Debian has!), but 1200 of them are simple
(LaTeX) style files. I his talk he mentions that (until April) he had
not done any work towards integrating the new TeXLive with any Linux
distro. He also predicts that we'd be in trouble since we can no
longer "hack around"

Also, going back to an earlier question of Patrice, Norbert mentions
that there's support for regenerating fmutil.cnf, language.dat, and
updmap.cfg from a database (whatever that means) plus local additions,
which is probably what Patrice wants.

Hope this helps,
Vasile

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Jonathan Underwood
<jonathan.underwood@gmail.com> wrote:
> Not quite the same thing, but there is tpm2deb which is here:
>
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-tex/texlive2008/trunk/tpm2deb-source.pl?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
>
> ... might have a look to see how hard it would be to re-plumb that to
> produce rpms.
>
> J.
>
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-10-2008, 05:19 AM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default TeXLive 2008 in F10?

Initially I thought we could do without their installer, because I
found only 4 types of "execute", i.e. post install script actions in
the master texlive.tlpdb on CTAN. Then I had a look at their new
packager's sources:
http://www.tug.org/svn/texlive/trunk/Master/tlpkg/TeXLive/. Besides
the 4 generic "execute" types, there are plenty of hardcoded
package-specific things in TLPostActions.pm.

So, I don't see an easy way of dealing with this. Duplicating all that
stuff in rpm post scriptlets would be highly unmaintanable. The only
sane way would be to install their packager library first, and to
execute post actions from there as needed, which needs at least a
wrapper script since that code is Perl. It's more than I have time for
this weekend...

On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@gmail.com> wrote:
> That file Jonathan pointed me to is a converter from the old TeXLive
> tpm format, which is now obsolete. The guy that wrote that script,
> Norbert Preining, is one of the principal authors of the new TeXLive
> packaging system. Too bad he doesn't dig Fedora.
>
> The TeXLive folks are pretty serious with this installer. They've got
> an API, but the only complete bindings are in, cough, Perl. There's a
> talk here that describes some of the API and more importantly the new
> package structure; skip the incoherent part until Norbert starts
> talking - you'll see a slide with his name when that happens around
> minute 19: [http://www.river-valley.tv/conferences/bachotex2008/#0104-Reinhard_Kotucha].
> His sildes are here:
> [http://www.logic.at/staff/preining/talks/bachotek08-talk.pdf]. I'm
> summarizing the essential points from the talk below.
>
> A single package is described by a file ending in ".tlpobj", which is
> generated starting from a ".tlpsrc", which is an auto-filled spec
> basically because it can be as simple as the package name; the missing
> info is pulled from CTAN. The ".tlpsrc" can use complex regexp patters
> to describe the files, but AFAICT the ".tlpobj" is equivalent to a rpm
> manifest in that it contains an exact file list, dependencies and a
> post install script; you have license info too. The key slide (for us)
> from the talk is the one describing the fields of a tlpobj:
> [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/tlpobj_fields.PNG]. It looks good
> enough to make a rpm from it! As you can see TeXLive versions the
> stuff from CTAN in their own svn. This is quite useful for us because
> stuff from CTAN is often an unversioned pain. An example tlpobj:
> [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/tlpobj.PNG]. Another one that goes
> with the quote "this is something new - we have dependencies":
> [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/tlpobj2.PNG]. They also have a
> complete database by concatenating all the ".tlpobj" files in the file
> "texlive.tlpdb". The API from 10,000 feet:
> [http://www.cs.umd.edu/~gaburici/tlpobj_API.PNG]. A 5-page paper that
> gives a bit more detail than my paragraph:
> [http://www.logic.at/staff/preining/pubs/guit07.pdf]. I was unable to
> find the API documentation on the net however; it's probably in their
> svn somewhere. If you have any luck, let me know.
>
> Another bit of relevant info from the talk is that there are about
> 1500 packages (more than Debian has!), but 1200 of them are simple
> (LaTeX) style files. I his talk he mentions that (until April) he had
> not done any work towards integrating the new TeXLive with any Linux
> distro. He also predicts that we'd be in trouble since we can no
> longer "hack around"
>
> Also, going back to an earlier question of Patrice, Norbert mentions
> that there's support for regenerating fmutil.cnf, language.dat, and
> updmap.cfg from a database (whatever that means) plus local additions,
> which is probably what Patrice wants.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Vasile
>
> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Jonathan Underwood
> <jonathan.underwood@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not quite the same thing, but there is tpm2deb which is here:
>>
>> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/debian-tex/texlive2008/trunk/tpm2deb-source.pl?op=file&rev=0&sc=0
>>
>> ... might have a look to see how hard it would be to re-plumb that to
>> produce rpms.
>>
>> J.
>>
>>
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:58 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org