This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Opinions sought on TeX Live packaging
- From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- To: cygwin-apps <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 07:57:04 -0500
- Subject: Re: Opinions sought on TeX Live packaging
- References: <4FEF7FFF.5090307@cornell.edu>
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 18:38 -0400, Ken Brown wrote:
> TeX Live upstream has thousands of packages, grouped into "collections".
> Cygwin's TeX Live distribution, as originally packaged by Yaakov, has
> one texlive-collection-* package for each upstream collection. I've
> just discovered that about 1800 of the upstream packages, falling into
> about 40 collections, have documentation that is currently not included
> in the Cygwin packages. I don't know if this was on oversight on
> Yaakov's part or a deliberate decision to omit most of the documentation.
I had originally intended to do exactly as you propose, I just never got
around to it before I handed TeX Live over to you.
> In any case, I think that the documentation is an integral part of TeX
> Live and needs to be part of the Cygwin distribution. If I simply add
> it to the texlive-collection-* packages, however, some of them
> drastically increase in size. For example, the installation tarball for
> texlive-collection-latex would increase from about 1MB to about 40MB.
> And for texlive-collection-latexextra it would increase from under 10MB
> to over 300MB.
>
> My inclination is to create new texlive-collection-*-doc packages, at
> least for the most commonly used collections and/or for the collections
> that have a lot of documentation. Ubuntu appears to do something like
> this.
Of course, I'm sure you already understand that these can be completely
separate source packages and do not need to be subpackages of the
collections.
> Before going ahead with this, I'd like to know if people think it's a
> good idea.
+1.
Yaakov