[tex-live] fonts in tex-live in pkgsrc

Norbert Preining preining at logic.at
Wed Jan 16 01:11:55 CET 2013

Hi George,

On Di, 15 Jan 2013, George Georgalis wrote:
> First off, this is not a private endeavor. I am using pkgsrc which is is a
> framework for building third-party software on NetBSD and other UNIX-like

Than the mailing list 
	tldistro at tug.org
should be the one you are using. But anyway, let us continue here.
Maybe others might be interested.

> I have used pkgsrc packaged Latex on NetBSD successfully for *many* years

based on TeX Live? 

> sources. I believe the issue was/is source being provided only by a
> non-versioned URL. eg http://domain.com/tex-live.tgz vs
> http://domain.com/tex-live-20130115.tgz which in turn prevented packagers

Wrong. The iso image is named after the release date:

If you are using the tlnet distribution method, then we cannot help you.
THis is our distribution channel, and we cannot rename it daily, 
because it is the URL used by many users out there

> from providing assurance that the package deployment is the same as the
> validated sources, since the sources would change under the same url. I
> only know that was a coordination pain point, not sure the current status.

The .iso does not change, the tlnet changes daily. You have to live with that.

I am also packaging TL for Debian, and here Debian provides the sources,
I prepare them based on a specific date and upload the binary packages plus
sources to Debian.

If pkgsrc does not provide a similar option, there is hardly anything
we can do but recommend you to remain with the released iso image,
which has a fixed date and does not change. THere are also accompanying
.tar.xz based on this iso image, if you prefer.

But the tlnet will not carry a version number.

> What is the tex-live charter with regard to coordinating with other groups
> for downstream (re)packaging of tex-live source code?

See above. We try everything to make it easy for distributions, but
still have to keep our own distribution channels intact.

> With regard to the issues described here. If you can help by identifying
> missing components or relevant configuration files; I can probably move
> through the next steps. My big frustration now is I don't understand the

This is what I always recommend. You should be a *user* of TeX Live
(install it normally via our distributin channels), get to know the
internals of TeX system, before trying to package something.

> In any event my interest is in using the software again, asap. So now I'm
> trying the method described at tug.org,
> http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire-netinstall.html
> and
> http://mirror.ctan.org/systems/texlive/tlnet/install-tl-unx.tar.gz

That changes daily, too.

> per instructions I extract install-tl-unx.tar.gz and run the enclosed
> installer.

This is fine.

> /install-tl-20130115 ./install-tl
> xzdec: not found

Your distribution could not be recognized by config.guess and there
is no xzdec provided by the system, so installation cannot continue.
Clearly written here:

> ./install-tl: Initialization failed (in setup_unix_one):
> ./install-tl: could not find a usable xzdec.
> ./install-tl: Please install xzdec and try again.
> ./install-tl: Goodbye.
> as it happens there is no xzdec or wget in my base system; nor is there any
> guidance as to the software dependencies of install-tl-unx.tar.gz (other
> than run time errors); however "xz" and "wget" where easily installed when
> identified and the install is proceeding.

Yes, we ship wget and xz* for all the arch we (upstream) are currently
supporting, see the directory
	tlpkg/installer/xz (and /wget), that is:
xz.alpha-linux*		xzdec.i386-solaris*	 xz.i386-kfreebsd*
xz.amd64-freebsd*	xzdec.mipsel-linux*	 xz.i386-linux*
xz.amd64-kfreebsd*	xzdec.powerpc-aix*	 xz.i386-solaris*
xz.armel-linux*		xzdec.powerpc-linux*	 xz.mipsel-linux*
xzdec.alpha-linux*	xzdec.sparc-linux*	 xz.powerpc-aix*
xzdec.amd64-freebsd*	xzdec.sparc-solaris*	 xz.powerpc-linux*
xzdec.amd64-kfreebsd*	xzdec.universal-darwin*  xz.sparc-linux*
xzdec.armel-linux*	xzdec.x86_64-darwin*	 xz.sparc-solaris*
xzdec.exe*		xzdec.x86_64-linux*	 xz.universal-darwin*
xzdec.i386-cygwin.exe*	xzdec.x86_64-solaris*	 xz.x86_64-darwin*
xzdec.i386-freebsd*	xz.exe*			 xz.x86_64-linux*
xzdec.i386-kfreebsd*	xz.i386-cygwin.exe*	 xz.x86_64-solaris*
xzdec.i386-linux*	xz.i386-freebsd*

I don't know the machine you are running on, but it seems not to fall into
one of the above categories.

> I have a fast connection but it would seem there are 2137 things to
> download after disabling most foreign language support (after 40 packages
> the estimate is 6 more hours of downloads)

Yes. TL is carrying about 2Gb.

That is the reason one should introduce a decent splitting scheme.
THere are many approaches to that. I guess AFAIR Fedora has one package
per TeX Live package, Debian has one Debian package per TeX Live collection,
etc etc. It is up to you to decide how you package it into 
different levels.

Concerning the font:

> Description:
> This package provides Adobe Helvetica fonts.

THat is *wrong*. Do you see the *font* data in the list below?

> share/
> share/texmf-dist
> share/texmf-dist/dvips
> share/texmf-dist/dvips/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/afm
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/afm/adobe
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/afm/adobe/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/afm/urw
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/afm/urw/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/map
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/map/dvips
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/map/dvips/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/adobe/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/cspsfonts-adobe
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/cspsfonts-adobe/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/monotype
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/monotype/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/urw35vf
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/tfm/urw35vf/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/type1
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/urw/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/adobe/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/cspsfonts-adobe
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/cspsfonts-adobe/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/monotype
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/monotype/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/urw35vf
> share/texmf-dist/fonts/vf/urw35vf/helvetic
> share/texmf-dist/tex
> share/texmf-dist/tex/latex
> share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/helvetic
> Can you clarify? Is this incorrect packaging and/or licensing info?

The Adobe Helvetica font is *not* freely available as far as I know.

But URW helvetica is included and will be used automatically.

> > For TeX Gyre Heros it would be
> > \usepackage{tgheros}
> I'm not seeing that as a component of my pkgsrc tex-live install. Will try
> with the tex-live installed directly from tug, when it's ready.

It is in the tex-gyre package, which should be there, unless something
is messed up.

> I do respect the importance of software licensing and tracking
> of appropriate use. My company uses a system where we must declare the
> license and version of original sources, the license, version and original
> source is then stored in a DB for auditing.

I recommend reading through tldistro, and especially the Fedore license
audit of TeX Live.

In the texlive.tlpdb the licenses of the single packges are recorded
based on the TeX Catalogue, which in turned is updated as soon as new
information come out (and some things were removed from TL based on the
Fedora audit).

> Given the challenges in recent history to re-package tex-live so that it
> can be deployed via the native OS package manager, at least pkgsrc, can you
> recommend a method to smooth out that process?

My recommendation:
* use TeX Live from tug for some time, get to know how it works
* look at other distributions how they have packaged
* make up your mind *what* you want to package (daily updates, iso)
* make up your mind into which units you want to package

After that I can help with more details, but I cannot make these decisions
for you, and I cannot make you help.

FURTHERMORE: I recommend looking into the packags of *other* BSDs.
I know there is a certain level of disagreement, but it would be
.... (not to be inpolite) *not* to look up what others have done.
I remember having a BSD related discussion *years* ago.

Actually, if you are interested, I will give a talk at FOSDEM 2013 in
Brussels on this topic, packaging TeX Live....

Best wishes


PREINING, Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094   fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094

More information about the tex-live mailing list