Re: New: Minimal TeXLive Port. Please test and comment.
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 02:54:15PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote: The script does not just remove man pages. Are the rest of the files ok to stay there? The reason it is scripted is so that I don'thave to spend ages manually commenting PLIST lines. You don't have to spend ages manually commenting PLIST lines. Stuff you comment out in a PLIST *stays commented* when you run make update-plist.
Re: New: Minimal TeXLive Port. Please test and comment.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
Am I going to assume that the size of the package is acceptable and
continue with a texlive_texmf-full package, which will be an all the
rest kind of affair?
I'm fine with the size. 316 MB compared to the teTeX thing (217 MB)
isn't too bad.
However some notes (on texmf-minimal, I'll look on the base stuff
later):
- Don't just move away the stuff from WRKDIST to PREFIX/share, copy it
over, i.e. something like
umask 022 cp -r ${WRKDIST}/texmf* ${PREFIX}/share
- Moving the manpages during do-install and then removing them using a
script is silly. Just omit this and @comment the bogus manpages in the
PLIST. That means, go with the above mentioned command line for
do-install, then make update-plist (should be done anyway, since
there appear to be some more files missing from your PLIST), then
@comment share/texmf/doc/man/man1 and also change all the @man
tags to @comment.
- For post-install, I've to see the texmf-full thing first. This may be
a case for @exec/@unexec.
I can't really carry on if the minimal package is subject to change.
That complicated? I don't know (yet) what the implications of moving
stuff around between texmf-minimal and texmf-full, but you should
really work towards *one* port with subpackages, e.g.:
texmf-main: the minimal stuff
texmf-full (or texmf-addons, or whatever): all the other files,
should RUN_DEPENDS on texmf-main
As noted, files that need to be tweaked when adding/deleting
texmf-full (such as fmtutil.cnf and updmap.cfg, or just ls-R) may
be dealt with using @exec/@unexec tags in the PLIST.
Ciao,
Kili
Re: New: Minimal TeXLive Port. Please test and comment.
Hey Matthias,
On 03/06/07, Matthias Kilian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 05:07:47PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote:
Am I going to assume that the size of the package is acceptable and
continue with a texlive_texmf-full package, which will be an all the
rest kind of affair?
I'm fine with the size. 316 MB compared to the teTeX thing (217 MB)
isn't too bad.
Excellent!
However some notes (on texmf-minimal, I'll look on the base stuff
later):
- Don't just move away the stuff from WRKDIST to PREFIX/share, copy it
over, i.e. something like
umask 022 cp -r ${WRKDIST}/texmf* ${PREFIX}/share
I used to copy before, but I favored moving because it is far quicker.
I later learned that it makes it annoying to re-run make fake. I
agree, in other words!
- Moving the manpages during do-install and then removing them using a
script is silly. Just omit this and @comment the bogus manpages in the
PLIST. That means, go with the above mentioned command line for
do-install, then make update-plist (should be done anyway, since
there appear to be some more files missing from your PLIST), then
@comment share/texmf/doc/man/man1 and also change all the @man
tags to @comment.
Ok, I am unaware of any files missing. I will re-generate a new PLIST
and diff them.
- For post-install, I've to see the texmf-full thing first. This may be
a case for @exec/@unexec.
Yes there will be some @exec/unexec to put a different config file in
place of the minimal one. See _base where i copy the default
fmtutil.cnf and use sed on it. I will use exec to put the full config
file back in place.
I can't really carry on if the minimal package is subject to change.
That complicated? I don't know (yet) what the implications of moving
stuff around between texmf-minimal and texmf-full,
Complicated... no.
Untarring / retarring large 300MB distfiles for example takes ages and
I will waste time going back to change things. Also the python script
that calculates the deps takes a while as it does an 'insert sort' on
the file lists for the thousands of files on the texlive DVD (The
lists are stored in 'sets', so there is no duplication) = really slow.
but you should
really work towards *one* port with subpackages, e.g.:
Thats what I'm doing. Perhaps a misunderstanding?
I plan 3 SUBDIRS:
base - binaries
texmf-minimal - small texmf
texmf-full - the rest of the texmf
As noted, files that need to be tweaked when adding/deleting
texmf-full (such as fmtutil.cnf and updmap.cfg, or just ls-R) may
be dealt with using @exec/@unexec tags in the PLIST.
Already done in base. Updmap only becomes available when base is
installed, and base requires a texmf to build and install.
Also note that because updmap now needs to be re-run and overwrite
files that cannot be accounted for in PLISTS (md5 mismatches will
occur etc), no lndir is used anymore.
Thanks for your time. I'm glad the size if the package is acceptable,
this was my greatest concern.
I'll start on this soon.
--
Best Regards
Edd
---
http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: New: Minimal TeXLive Port. Please test and comment.
On 03/06/07, Edd Barrett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey Matthias, - Moving the manpages during do-install and then removing them using a script is silly. Just omit this and @comment the bogus manpages in the PLIST. That means, go with the above mentioned command line for do-install, then make update-plist (should be done anyway, since there appear to be some more files missing from your PLIST), then @comment share/texmf/doc/man/man1 and also change all the @man tags to @comment. Ok, I am unaware of any files missing. I will re-generate a new PLIST and diff them. The script does not just remove man pages. Are the rest of the files ok to stay there? The reason it is scripted is so that I don'thave to spend ages manually commenting PLIST lines. What you reckon? -- Best Regards Edd --- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: New: Minimal TeXLive Port. Please test and comment.
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 02:54:15PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote: - Moving the manpages during do-install and then removing them using a script is silly. Just omit this and @comment the bogus manpages in the PLIST.[...] [...] Ok, I am unaware of any files missing. I will re-generate a new PLIST and diff them. The script does not just remove man pages. Oh, sorry, didn't read enough of it, i guess. Are the rest of the files ok to stay there? The reason it is scripted is so that I don'thave to spend ages manually commenting PLIST lines. You've to maintain the list, anyway, either in the script or in the PLIST. In this case, I'd prefer PLIST. Ciao, Kili
Re: New: Minimal TeXLive Port. Please test and comment.
Hi ports@, I have just uploaded a new revision of this port (see my web-page), which fixes a updmap-sys bug. I have not have much feedback on this port since I made the minimal version. I am assuming this is because most developers are all hacked out from the hackathon? Am I going to assume that the size of the package is acceptable and continue with a texlive_texmf-full package, which will be an all the rest kind of affair? I can't really carry on if the minimal package is subject to change. -- Best Regards Edd --- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
Re: New: Minimal TeXLive Port. Please test and comment.
Hi Emilio, On 29/05/07, Emilio Perea [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 09:41:02PM +0100, Edd Barrett wrote: I have now prototyped a more minimal subset of the TeXLive distribution following concerns that the 500+MB texmf tree was too large (which it is). It builds and seems to work fine (including ruby and ghostscrpt. :-) Note that if texlive_base-2007.tgz from the previous build is not renamed, it will attempt to install it and that will complain about the -minimal-2007 files already installed. Yup. I'd expect that. Just remove the old stuff. I assume that when you have another texmf package either the port will keep track of them or the full package will not duplicate the files in the minimal set, so this is no big deal. My python script will ensure that no files are duplicated. Is there anything in particular you would like checked? Like I said, it looks fine from here on amd64. Just check some of your latex files build with it really =) Do you have any comments on the size of the package? Thanks for testing. -- Best Regards Edd --- http://students.dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/ebarrett
