Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0.dfsg.3-5
Severity: wishlist
Hi all,
once again to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm filing that as wishlist now, after asking for it a few month ago.
Maybe you did change the code since then and I did not notice. If
this is the case, please complain.
I upgraded my tetex-base package and noticed the following:
<snip>
Setting up tetex-base (3.0.dfsg.3-1) ...
mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFDIST-TETEX...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Done.
Running updmap-sys. This may take some time... done.
mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFDIST-TETEX...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Done.
Running fmtutil-sys. This may take some time... done.
mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFDIST-TETEX...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Done.
</snip>
i.e. we're calling mktexlsr 3 times. I understand that we have to call
before updmap-sys and after fmtutil-sys, but do we really have to
call between updmap-sys and fmtutil-sys?
IMHO there is room for optimization. If not, please explain.
Further additions coming from Frank and Florent:
<Frank>
> i.e. we're calling mktexlsr 3 times. I understand that we have to call
> before updmap-sys and after fmtutil-sys, but do we really have to
> call betwenn updmap-sys and fmtutil-sys?
If a pdftex format includes font information, would it need a map file?
I don't think so.
</Frank>
<Florent>
> i.e. we're calling mktexlsr 3 times. I understand that we have to call
> before updmap-sys and after fmtutil-sys, but do we really have to
> call betwenn updmap-sys and fmtutil-sys?
The first two calls to mktexlsr can be somehow justified by the
recommended (at least by me!) sequence to use whenever you update map
files (resp. format files):
update-updmap
mktexlsr
updmap-sys
resp.
update-fmtutil
mktexlsr
fmtutil-sys
But it's true that when both operations are done in a row, the second
mktexlsr call is useless in most cases. The only case I see where it
makes a difference is if the update-fmtutil call *creates* fmtutil.cnf,
instead of updating it. Which can happen, though not very frequently.
As for the third call, after fmtutil-sys, I think this one is really
useless, because near the end of main(), fmtutil-sys has the following
code:
for i in *.fmt *.mem *.base; do
test -f "$i" || continue
rm -f "$destdir/$i"
# We don't want user-interaction for the following "mv" command:
if mv "$i" "$destdir/$i" </dev/null; then
verboseMsg "$progname: $destdir/$i installed."
$mktexfmtMode && echo "$destdir/$i"
fi
mktexupd "$destdir" "$i"
done
Just as with updmap(-sys), Thomas Esser was careful to have fmtutil-sys
register the files it creates in the ls-R database.
> IMHO there is room for optimization. If not, please explain.
Yes, there is room IMHO too. However, calling mktexlsr does not take
*very* long, so we won't gain that much. Still, 0.5 second or so on my
system for non-first runs (later runs are faster than the first one due
to the caching performed by the kernel).
</Florent>
<Frank>
No, I don't think it has changed in teTeX. I think that TeXlive
behaves more clever here, but I'm not sure.
I don't think it's worth to fix this in teTeX - personally I do not
plan any more uploads except those targetted at etch. But for the
TeXLive packages, we should take care for optimization.
</Frank>
Thanks,
Hilmar
--
sigfault
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
