On 15 October 2016 at 12:55, Ian Malone <ibmal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What was scarry 9 years ago now is even more scary today.
> > Will try to present you what is in texlive today over now available rpm
> > packages.
> What exactly are you using TeX for? The following examples suggest you
> aren't very clear on its uses:
You are losing the point.
It doesn't matter how and for what I'm using TeX. I've not said even single
word about how I'm using TeX.
I'm questioning generally about packaging every piece of garbage already
been sucked into texlive and repeating patterns of texlive packages 1:1
into rpm ones.
Style templates are how LaTeX is supposed to work, for a re-used
> document format you fill in various parameters in your .tex document
> and it generates the format for you, creating or adjusting your own
> style is more involved. Note this comes from CTAN, you don't need to
> install this package yourself, but if you require it it is much easier
> to install from a fedora package.
Seems you are thinking that I don't know for what are styles for, and I
need some explanation. completely ignoring exactly why this style is
delivered as rpm package.
> Name : texlive-allrunes
> Few questions:
> > What is the size of the cross section of the sets: "we are using Linux"
> > "we uses runes fonts"?
> > Maybe few artist in whole word are using runes .. how many of them are
> > Linux?
> "Artist"... TeX is largely used by academics, and the whether people
> wish to use runes (for example for books and papers) and are using TeX
> to do so are probably not independent factors.
So again: what is the size of cross section of those two sets?
> Why those vectorised resources are only available as TeX users?
> > Why TeX is not prepared to use system wide Type1 font and is not able to
> > share those fonts with other applications?
> > Why most Type1/TTF fonts are at least served three times as: ghoscript
> > fonts, X11/Weyland fonts and TeX fonts?
> > Why TeX live is not able to share those fonts with other applications?
> > someone who what to quickly prepare some post card want to use those
> > as some funny markings? However probability that he/she will use TeX is
> > probably the same as probability that bucket of water left on open fire
> > freeze (according to quantum physics probability of something like this
> > greater than zero) and probably more likely will try to use LibreOffice.
> > Isn't it?
> TeX predates Type1 fonts, though most distributions support them, and
> is used for its typesetting abilities. The needs of someone who wants
> to do a little cultural appropriation for a quick postcard are going
> to be less stringent than someone who actually wants to use the
> language, but they'll be in luck, because there is a runic block in
> unicode and fonts that support it outside TeX
Did I made any question about unes and unicode??
Don't you see that you not answered eve on my single question or pointed
that some of those questions have some flaws in logic?
How we can discuss if you are ignoring questions adding instead some almost
> Does Fedora really need to regenerate package with these fonts every time
> when someone will change even single bit in any TeX live resources?
Unanswered question ..
> > If anyone today will need to convert any of those formats to EPS or PDF
> > likely will use convert from ImageMagic.
> > Isn't it?
> From its description this looks like an interface layer, since TeX's
> main use is producing pdf and eps it's not particularly surprising it
> has one. ImageMagick itself uses ghostscript
Sorry asking. I want to be only sure.
Above it is an answer on my question or ony random comment?
> I don't remember name of this TeX package but I'm almost 100%
> > sure that it is still in texlive tree somewhere. "The Package"
> > generates using metapost cube view with visable only one side,
> > two sides and EVEN THREE sides!!! 8-O
> > As example of generating some graphics it was obsolete in the
> > time when people started using Corel Draw in Win 3.11 era
> > (anyone remember this program?).
> I don't, but this hypothetical program would be a good example of
> literate programming.
This is not hypothetical program. Just found this packaged as rpm.
Look on texlive-threeddice.
> You can certainly draw a diagram in Inkscape,
> but if you have a large document with lots of these you now have a
> directory full of images and their source files, and changing them
> means editing these, getting the right one, replacing the included
> image. Doing this under source control becomes a real pain. More
> concrete example (one I know exists), packages to draw Feynman
> diagrams. If you're preparing a professional publication you don't
> want to be drawing these by hand.
OMG. Did I ask how can I draw cube/dice?
If yes .. I'm really sorry to distract you.
> > And now back to what I wrote about TeX maintainers.
> > TeX live is more like black hole sucking every bit of anything related to
> > TeX. Ones something stored in the tree doesn't matter is it still
> usefull or
> > not still will be "maintained". Those people are thinking that they are
> > doing great job but in reality as now TeX live holds probably almost
> > everything what was produced as TeX tool/example it shows how small this
> > world is.
> TeX has been around since 1978, so that it hasn't sucked everything in
> yet suggests it's not really a black hole. Having put LaTeX to serious
> use in the past I've been pretty glad when I've found that a package
> or style is available as rpm, because maintaining a TeX install
> manually is not pretty.
Hmm. did I ask when TeX development started?
Maybe you don't know but black hole it is not an object which sucks
everything what exists.
It is an object which does not allow escape an object from his own gravity
field. Maybe it is not clear but I;ve used this analogy t point that
packaging an mass all texlive is pure .. <censored>.
Seems you completely lost on what I've been pointing.
Will try to rephrase this as shortly as possible.
TeX live has own pattern of packages. few people now are maintaining
literally in 1:1 mapping those packages into rpm packages.
This is pure nonsense!
One more examples:
TeX packages separately <something> and <something>-doc. Hover rpm can
combine in single package those types of resources because using %doc macro
is possible to specify that some files listed in package are documentation
and by this is possible on install/upgrade stage decide to install/not
install documentation. Only by this is possible to reduce number of
generated packages by more than 2k!!!
This is like trying to package all CPAN packages which is not bad however
what has been done in texlive.spec is similar to packing all perl
extensions/modules automatically. All this without thinking what is
packaged just an mass *everything*, and build all those perl packages from
SINGLE spec file!!!
No one is even trying to do this on perl because people knows that CPAN is
yet another this kind of black hole and qualities some of those modules
varies. More important is that CPAN is enough old (enough old like CTAN)
that you can find in this reo even perl 4 modules which are no longer
People maintaining packages in Fedora are doing sometimes strange things in
spec files however whatever they've are doing has some reason and they are
fill responsible for what they've done. Generating *blindly few thousands*
packages automatically delegates this responsibility to CTAN. I'm 100% sure
that more than half of those techlive rpm package never been used by anyone.
This way generating as well many nonsenses in texlive package as well.
Only one example (but they are much more like this).
Summary : TeX Live filesystem, metadata and licenses shipped in text
TeX Live licenses shipped in text form.
So it contain texts of licenses used texlive packages, /etc/texlive
directory tree and some "metadata". However this is not true because
biggest part of this package are *all directories used by any texlive
package*. In total it is almost 6k directories which should be part of
other texlive packages!!!
In /etc/texlive are subdirectories like dvips, tex and web2c. Why those
directories are not part of other packages? (dvips, web2c ..)
Someone done "brilliant" work doing ths packages generator however whatever
has been generated should be not used blindly in this case. I can imagine
that every texlive package could be generated initially as separated spec
file. After this few people should decide after careful review "ok, I'm
going to take this piece, polish an publish because I see it useful and I'm
signing this using my blood that everything what I've done has some
reason". Every package should be tested somehow at least by maintainer
which looks lke never happen in case of more than 95% of all texlive
Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: *http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH <http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH>*
devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org