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 08-31-2008, 11:16 PM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default Very nice of you to write the tl2rpm converter

It would have been even nicer had you cc'd fedora-devel-list...

For those that don't read the tex-live@tug list, or the ambassadors'
list, here's the tl2rpm (prototype) announcement:
http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2008-August/017190.html

My main concern is that %post actions will turn out quite hairy, see
below (you were probably on vacation then):

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: TeXLive 2008 in F10?
To: Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@gmail.com>, Patrice Dumas
<pertusus@free.fr>, Development discussions related to Fedora
<fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>


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...

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 09-01-2008, 12:26 AM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default Very nice of you to write the tl2rpm converter

Actually, the main problem I see with that single spec is update
handling. When a single source of those many thousands changes, you'd
have to rebuild all the binary rpms, and they'll all get a new release
number. Unless there's some hack to avoid this, the Fedora user would
have to update all the texlive rpms every time, thus negating any
benefit of having TL split in those packages.

Also, I think you need a way patch that spec after it's generated or
perhaps as it is generated. Some reasons to do this:

* packaging the TeX OpenType fonts only for TeX is a no-no these days
* some TL packages have incorrect/missing license. For instance
glyphlist, which contains Adobe's glyphlist.txt, (which is taken from
lcdf-typetools in TL2008) and IMHO needs "Redistributable, no
modification permitted". BTW, in TL2008 that file is required by
lcdf-typetools and dvipdfmx, but in Fedora's TL 2007, dvipdfmx
includes Adobe's file in its own rpm, so the rpm probably has an
incomplete license field because of it; should add "... and
Redistributable, no ..." like poppler has.
* some packages should probably not be built from TeXLive, so you
probably need blacklist. Examples:
- The Gyre fonts (currenly) have a licensing issue.
- Some packages like lcdf-typetools (in which all programs except
one don't actually need TeX at all) are probably better built outside
of TeXLive (with subpackages in this case).
- You probably want to disable tlmgr. Unless you can patch it to
install rpms instead, of course, but that seem difficult to hack...
* the TL2008 texmf.cnf file uses $SELFAUTOPARENT. This can cause
trouble with binaries sitting outside its tree. If the user installs
any binaries of its own (say in /usr/local/bin), they won't work with
the default cnf. See:
http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2008-August/017338.html

As matter of approach, packaging TL binaries surely is convenient, but
there are some potential problems:

* odd shared libraries used. For instance TL2008's lcdf-typetools did
not work on Fedora 9 out of the box because of missing libstdc++.so.5
(granted it's in a compat package, so when the RPM is built the right
dependency would probably get added), but that dependency is
gratuitous in this case.
* TL builds a lot of stuff statically liked. A prime example is XeTeX.
This one is tricky because it uses modified versions of some libraries
(ICU), some libraries which don't have any modifications but are also
included in XeTeX tree.

Hope this helps,
Vasile

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would have been even nicer had you cc'd fedora-devel-list...
>
> For those that don't read the tex-live@tug list, or the ambassadors'
> list, here's the tl2rpm (prototype) announcement:
> http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2008-August/017190.html
>
> My main concern is that %post actions will turn out quite hairy, see
> below (you were probably on vacation then):
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:19 AM
> Subject: Re: TeXLive 2008 in F10?
> To: Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@gmail.com>, Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus@free.fr>, Development discussions related to Fedora
> <fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>
>
>
> 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...
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 09-01-2008, 05:13 PM
Jindrich Novy
 
Default Very nice of you to write the tl2rpm converter

Hi Vasile,

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 02:16:29AM +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
> It would have been even nicer had you cc'd fedora-devel-list...
>
> For those that don't read the tex-live@tug list, or the ambassadors'
> list, here's the tl2rpm (prototype) announcement:
> http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2008-August/017190.html
>
> My main concern is that %post actions will turn out quite hairy, see
> below (you were probably on vacation then):

I was on PTO until the end of August. Thanks for heads-up.

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:19 AM
> Subject: Re: TeXLive 2008 in F10?
> To: Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@gmail.com>, Patrice Dumas
> <pertusus@free.fr>, Development discussions related to Fedora
> <fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>
>
>
> 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.

Yes, upstream has only four %post actions, two of them are trivial and
is only adding maps or mixed maps to updmap.cfg. The third is just a
generation of fmt files. But the last, addition of hyphenation
paterns I still need to figure out. A good thing is that all of the
data needed to do such %post actions are defined in a similar way as
it is in spec so that it could be converted.

Currently I'm playing with compiling binary TeX Live 2008. And it is
needed to mention that Karl officially released TeX Live 2008 today.

> 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.

Right, this needs to be rewritten in something different than perl. Hopefully
it won't be that hard since we can ignore the win32 stuff, which seems
to be most tricky.

> So, I don't see an easy way of dealing with this. Duplicating all that
> stuff in rpm post scriptlets would be highly unmaintanable.

TeX Live is released once per year and the set of things that need to
be run in %post seems to be quite consistent during the year, so it
shouldn't be a maintenance nightmare. But it definitely becomes a
downstream packaging nightmare next year.

> 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...

I'm not too good in perl so even if I have time through weekend I
can't do that

Jindrich

--
Jindrich Novy <jnovy@redhat.com> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 09-01-2008, 05:31 PM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default Very nice of you to write the tl2rpm converter

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:13 PM, Jindrich Novy <jnovy@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> TeX Live is released once per year and the set of things that need to
> be run in %post seems to be quite consistent during the year, so it
> shouldn't be a maintenance nightmare. But it definitely becomes a
> downstream packaging nightmare next year.

Actually, it seems that the whole point of the new packaging
architecture is to provide frequent updates. The updates have been
frequent up to the official release of today anyway. Karl said
something about freezing the updates while the official DVDs get
burned, but they plan to resume them shortly after that (sorry I don't
have the email handy, but it was on tex-live@tug). I don't know how
often the updates will happen, better ask Karl about that, but my
guess is there will be more frequent updates than the once-a-year of
the past. So, there needs to be a way to rebuild just some of the
rpms.

The modularity of TL itself is a bit misleading however. I've never
seen a single binary, say pdftex, getting updated. Instead the updates
that touch core binaries are full recompilation of all the core
binaries. But the arch-independent packages were updated in a
fine-grained manner.

As far as updating the installer itself, well that happened too. I'm
sure of it because on Windows they make you run a separate script to
finish updating files that are normally locked while tlmgr is running
(this includes all the Perl modules it uses). As you put it, hopefully
that won't happen too often.

Thanks,
Vasile

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 09-01-2008, 05:39 PM
Jindrich Novy
 
Default Very nice of you to write the tl2rpm converter

On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 03:26:57AM +0300, Vasile Gaburici wrote:
> Actually, the main problem I see with that single spec is update
> handling. When a single source of those many thousands changes, you'd
> have to rebuild all the binary rpms, and they'll all get a new release
> number.

The tl2rpm is able to produce separate specs per one TeXLive package.
But it would lead to a huge number of packages around 4000 that we
would need to add into Fedora. It is simply not a way to go. So I was
thinking about schemes and collections that could be packaged
separately. The schemes would only be a metapackages dependent on
collections and collections would be sets of packages with one spec
that would cover a particular part of TeX Live (like ConTeXt,
langpacks, etc.) what is actually realizable since it would need about
400 packages.

This looks like an optimal granularity for it since collections
contain largest possible TeX Live bits that don't yet conflicts. But
the review process for 400 generated specs quite scares me.

> Unless there's some hack to avoid this, the Fedora user would
> have to update all the texlive rpms every time, thus negating any
> benefit of having TL split in those packages.

This is "solved" by splitting it into collections.

>
> Also, I think you need a way patch that spec after it's generated or
> perhaps as it is generated. Some reasons to do this:

It is expected. Basically the main spec could be a maintainable
template which %includes other specs for %post, %filelist and pakcge
definitions and descriptions what could be automatically generated.
The plan is to only touch the main spec.

>
> * packaging the TeX OpenType fonts only for TeX is a no-no these days
> * some TL packages have incorrect/missing license. For instance
> glyphlist, which contains Adobe's glyphlist.txt, (which is taken from
> lcdf-typetools in TL2008) and IMHO needs "Redistributable, no
> modification permitted". BTW, in TL2008 that file is required by
> lcdf-typetools and dvipdfmx, but in Fedora's TL 2007, dvipdfmx
> includes Adobe's file in its own rpm, so the rpm probably has an
> incomplete license field because of it; should add "... and
> Redistributable, no ..." like poppler has.
> * some packages should probably not be built from TeXLive, so you
> probably need blacklist. Examples:
> - The Gyre fonts (currenly) have a licensing issue.
> - Some packages like lcdf-typetools (in which all programs except
> one don't actually need TeX at all) are probably better built outside
> of TeXLive (with subpackages in this case).

Blacklists will be very hard to do since it could break dependencies
generated from the TeX Live metadata.

> - You probably want to disable tlmgr. Unless you can patch it to
> install rpms instead, of course, but that seem difficult to hack...
> * the TL2008 texmf.cnf file uses $SELFAUTOPARENT. This can cause
> trouble with binaries sitting outside its tree. If the user installs
> any binaries of its own (say in /usr/local/bin), they won't work with
> the default cnf. See:
> http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2008-August/017338.html
>
> As matter of approach, packaging TL binaries surely is convenient, but
> there are some potential problems:

I wouldn't package the precompiled TeX Live 2008 binaries. Currently
I'm trying to build them from sources. It is still work in progress.

> * odd shared libraries used. For instance TL2008's lcdf-typetools did
> not work on Fedora 9 out of the box because of missing libstdc++.so.5
> (granted it's in a compat package, so when the RPM is built the right
> dependency would probably get added), but that dependency is
> gratuitous in this case.
> * TL builds a lot of stuff statically liked. A prime example is XeTeX.
> This one is tricky because it uses modified versions of some libraries
> (ICU), some libraries which don't have any modifications but are also
> included in XeTeX tree.

+ optflags we set in Fedora which would get ignored.

> Hope this helps,
> Vasile
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 2:16 AM, Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would have been even nicer had you cc'd fedora-devel-list...
> >
> > For those that don't read the tex-live@tug list, or the ambassadors'
> > list, here's the tl2rpm (prototype) announcement:
> > http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2008-August/017190.html
> >
> > My main concern is that %post actions will turn out quite hairy, see
> > below (you were probably on vacation then):
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sun, Aug 10, 2008 at 8:19 AM
> > Subject: Re: TeXLive 2008 in F10?
> > To: Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@gmail.com>, Patrice Dumas
> > <pertusus@free.fr>, Development discussions related to Fedora
> > <fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>
> >
> >
> > 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...
> >

--
Jindrich Novy <jnovy@redhat.com> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 09-01-2008, 06:32 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Very nice of you to write the tl2rpm converter

Le lundi 01 septembre 2008 à 19:39 +0200, Jindrich Novy a écrit :

> This looks like an optimal granularity for it since collections
> contain largest possible TeX Live bits that don't yet conflicts. But
> the review process for 400 generated specs quite scares me.

Just start by splitting out all the stuff useful to non-TEX users (ie
fonts) and you'll find reviewers and possibly co-maintainers. I'd rather
review a score of simple packages that follow standard templates than
the horror the current mashup is.

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 09-01-2008, 06:55 PM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default Very nice of you to write the tl2rpm converter

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
<nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:
> Le lundi 01 septembre 2008 à 19:39 +0200, Jindrich Novy a écrit :
>
>> This looks like an optimal granularity for it since collections
>> contain largest possible TeX Live bits that don't yet conflicts. But
>> the review process for 400 generated specs quite scares me.
>
> Just start by splitting out all the stuff useful to non-TEX users (ie
> fonts) and you'll find reviewers and possibly co-maintainers. I'd rather
> review a score of simple packages that follow standard templates than
> the horror the current mashup is.

That can't be done by just grouping the TeXLive packages, you'd need
some splitting as well. In TL 2008 each font package contains the
fonts in a bunch of formats, some of which are useful only for TeX,
some of general interest.

Take for instance a simple font like cyklop (a relatively new titling
font from GUST -- don't worry these are digitizations of old metal
fonts, so no copyright issues), which has only a regular and italic
variants. In the same package you find the two .otf files of general
interest, two afm/pfb pairs of legacy interest, as well as a whole
bunch of (La)TeX-specific files (.fd, .tfm, .enc, .map and a .sty) for
various (La)TeX 8-bit encodings. As you know all these files are
essentially only metrics and encoding vectors; TeX82 drivers and
pdfTeX use the pfbs for the actual glyphs.

There's no problem moving the otf files to the system font dir
however. XeTeX can find them via fontconfig, and for LuaTeX you can
set OSFONTDIR.

Note that the LuaTeX that ships with TeXLive 2008 is hardly usable: it
has bugs in it's font cache code, and it's installed (as in copied)
but not really cofigured by TL (there's a page with instructions on
contextgarden if you really want to use it), so don't worry too much
about it. Anyone interested in LuaTeX uses the ConTeXt "minimals"
distro these says --- LuaTeX doesn't currently support LaTeX or plain
TeX.

>
> --
> Nicolas Mailhot
>

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 09-01-2008, 07:18 PM
"Vasile Gaburici"
 
Default Very nice of you to write the tl2rpm converter

Alternatively, although Nicolas won't like it, one could just symlink
texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public under the system fonts dir. This is
definitely less work than splitting every TL font package. OTOH, you
could script the splitting easily enough since there are only otf
files in those dirs and no otf files go anywhere else in the TL tree.
Note that some fonts like Asana-Math (and probably others) are already
included separately in Fedora.

The situation is slightly more complicated with
texmf-dist/fonts/truetype because pdftex can use those fonts directly,
but it cannot find them via fontconfig (or any environment variable
that I know of, but there may well be one). So, they'd have to be
symlinked one way or the other in both the system fonts dir and the
tex-live fonts dir.

Nasty business these fonts are.

On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Vasile Gaburici <vgaburici@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
> <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net> wrote:
>> Le lundi 01 septembre 2008 à 19:39 +0200, Jindrich Novy a écrit :
>>
>>> This looks like an optimal granularity for it since collections
>>> contain largest possible TeX Live bits that don't yet conflicts. But
>>> the review process for 400 generated specs quite scares me.
>>
>> Just start by splitting out all the stuff useful to non-TEX users (ie
>> fonts) and you'll find reviewers and possibly co-maintainers. I'd rather
>> review a score of simple packages that follow standard templates than
>> the horror the current mashup is.
>
> That can't be done by just grouping the TeXLive packages, you'd need
> some splitting as well. In TL 2008 each font package contains the
> fonts in a bunch of formats, some of which are useful only for TeX,
> some of general interest.
>
> Take for instance a simple font like cyklop (a relatively new titling
> font from GUST -- don't worry these are digitizations of old metal
> fonts, so no copyright issues), which has only a regular and italic
> variants. In the same package you find the two .otf files of general
> interest, two afm/pfb pairs of legacy interest, as well as a whole
> bunch of (La)TeX-specific files (.fd, .tfm, .enc, .map and a .sty) for
> various (La)TeX 8-bit encodings. As you know all these files are
> essentially only metrics and encoding vectors; TeX82 drivers and
> pdfTeX use the pfbs for the actual glyphs.
>
> There's no problem moving the otf files to the system font dir
> however. XeTeX can find them via fontconfig, and for LuaTeX you can
> set OSFONTDIR.
>
> Note that the LuaTeX that ships with TeXLive 2008 is hardly usable: it
> has bugs in it's font cache code, and it's installed (as in copied)
> but not really cofigured by TL (there's a page with instructions on
> contextgarden if you really want to use it), so don't worry too much
> about it. Anyone interested in LuaTeX uses the ConTeXt "minimals"
> distro these says --- LuaTeX doesn't currently support LaTeX or plain
> TeX.
>
>>
>> --
>> Nicolas Mailhot
>>
>

--
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 07:28 AM.

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