Hi, On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 03:31:41AM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > While here I've noticed complains about an ABI break in libsynctex. > > Please find an updated diff below that also bumps shlib version of > libptexenc and libsynctex. Still ok?
Ah, please feel free to bump all of the libraries. I usually do to be on the safe side, but it looks like I forgot this time :( About Kili's concern: > We still have to watch out for evince (the default flavor now > lib_depends on texlive/base,-main, and we still don't want more than > texlive/base,-mktexlsr for the light flavor). I agree that it's not good for users to have to install a texmf subset just to use evince. I'm OK with evince lib depending upon texlive-base in the interim until we decide what to do, but in the long term we don't want that heavy dependency. Whilst moving synctex into -mktexlsr is one solution, it kind of renders the name of the package odd. The current contents of -mktexlsr are not really all that related to libsynctex. I can think of a couple of other options: We could add a new -synctex subpackage, which contains the synctex includes and lib. However, we may end up in a scenario in the future where we have many little library subpackages, which will be annoying to maintain. We could instead put all of the bits external ports might like to use without depending on the texmf into -mktexlsr and rename the subpackage appropriately. I had initially though -libs might be a good name, but that's also misleading, as there are already binaries included in -mktexlsr (e.g. kpse* and mktexlsr itself). Maybe -shared or -tools? The latter option is more work upfront, as we'd have to sweep the tree updating dependencies, and perhaps add a quirk(?), but I think will be less effort to maintain in the long run. Thoughts? -- Best Regards Edd Barrett http://www.theunixzoo.co.uk
