Request for comment - How to improve TeX in Slackware?
 

Recently volkerdi posted this: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4927908
I would like to invite the TeX users in the Slackware community to give feedback on this issue.

I envisage a discussion of issues like:
What would be an easy addition to TeX that would aid usability?
My own example here would be that I needed to add the subscript.sty so that I could do subscripts. As this is a 559 byte file it is a very small addition that would aid usability.

What are the advantages that you get from TeXlive?
I accept that not using a modern version of TeX means that support from TeX forums is nigh on impossible.

Are TeX users happy with being able to install TeXlive from SlackBuilds.org on default Slackware or should it form part of the standard distribution?

I want part of TeXlive (like all dependencies of Kile in Debian) on the install dvd and the rest can be optional.

I had a chat with a texlive upstream maintainer at FOSDEM about this and there are some options we could persue. Alas I did not have time yet to look into it and probably won't for the forseeable future. But maybe someone else finds time, so here's what I got from him:

The texlive installer itself already has support for dividing the package set into smaller subsets, using either collections or schemas. So we can simply run the texlive installer, tell it what subsets we want (there is already a tetex schema), install in a temp location and create a new texmf tarball from that. Users would be able to get the non-included stuff using tlmgr.
tlmgr would need to install in a non-packaged location, which I'm not sure if or how it would be possible. There is a patch somewhere for tlmgr to make it install addon tex packages in the users homefolder, which would be ideal, but since it's not upstream yet would need testing.

This is the presentation from FOSDEM which covers some pitfalls of packaging texlive which might help with some of this: Distributing TeX and Friends: methods, pitfalls, advise

I was considering downloading and running the net-installer they provide and pointing it at something like /opt/texlive (owned by something along the lines of a 'texadmin' user). I'm not very knowledgeable with tex though so I don't know how well this might work.

Maybe this is a case where packaging it under the distros native package management doesn't add any value, and just makes things more complicated.

I think packaging parts of texlive (some minimal schema or something) will just complicate things - users who need additional tex stuff will install them with tlmgr, and than part of their tex installation will be managed by the pkgtools, and the other part by the texlive system. It could get very confusing and hard to maintain.

It seems to me the best option is to let the tex packaging system mange the whole thing. Using an external packaging mechanism for such an integral part of the system might seem to go against the keeping it simple philosophy, but I think it is better than the alternatives.

So, how can it be done? perhaps it is possible to include a sort of partial repository of texlive, with only the necessary stuff, on the installation media, so we can run the tex installer to get the basics from there during slackware installation. This way we actually have a small tex collection on the media but we manage it with texlive's tools, and the user can then use tlmgr if he needs additional tex stuff.
Now that I put this idea on paper (screen actually) it looks a bit complex, also I haven't checked if this is possible at all and there are surly some pitfalls to consider, but I still think its a good idea.

Why not a SlackBuild in /extra to package TextLive, like we have for Java and Chrome?

Being a mathematician by trade, I use LaTeX extensively. I prefer texlive because it includes mathdesign, which gives me access to the greatest font family of all time. Also, my dissertation required idxlayout to conform with school formatting guidelines. Neither package is present in Slackware tetex. I could probably survive without Charter, but idxlayout really saved my hide (I don't want to start hacking low-level TeX).

tetex is in an optional package group, isn't it? I would just junk it. I know it's a dependency in SBo texlive script, but they can work around it, can't they? It would be pretty silly if TeX was a hard requirement for building TeX.

Erm, I asked about finding a way to update teTeX, not for opinions about texlive. We've actually spent quite a lot of time looking at texlive, and my opinion is that it would be far more difficult to make texlive suitable for Slackware than it would be to update teTeX. The ability to build a subset of texlive is not enough if the enormous source tree would still need to be shipped. Adding a few more packages to teTeX (if it got an update) would not be out of the question. The problem with texlive is that they've added *everything*, far more than the average user of TeX has any use for.

Which brings up a side comment... when I started this project, it really wasn't my intent to provide every possible package, application, desktop, etc. My goal was to make a platform upon which things could be built easily and that followed upstream as closely as was possible. Of course, some applications had to be included, but the idea was to try to stick to the essentials that everyone would miss if they weren't there.

Guess maybe we got a bit off track, eh? ;)

I'm not unhappy with how things have turned out, and I'm not looking for removal ideas. However, it remains a command prerogative to try to keep bloat from continuing unchecked as much as possible.

As far as including just a build script for texlive in /extra, if it's already maintained at slackbuilds.org I don't see a big advantage.

Agreed - That was me. I was fishing for comment on potential deficiencies in teTeX that were resolved by using TeXlive.

I had hoped that your view on the addition of TeXlive (which I happen to agree with) was apparent from the quote in post#1.

I (in)directly use teTeX mostly via LyX these days, although I have created or edited a few latex documents more directly at times. I have not hit any limits with the Slackware teTeX package for my own limited use.

As for additions, I have collected/created a small subset of document classes over time that I now add to each new install.

So the only thing that comes to mind to make the default teTeX package more useful would be to add an extended collection of document classes, although those tend to come from various sources so I am not aware of any single source that would fit well within the Slackware "way".

FWIW - thank you for resisting the inclusion of texlive. I think that anything that would consume 50% of the installed size while providing no clear benefits to the mythical average user qualifies as the poster child for bloat!

I looked into texlive a year or two ago (prompted by another thread here as I recall) just to try to understand what benefits came with the large size, and I did not find any clear answer. Perhaps if I were in the publishing business, but then I would probably install it myself anyway.

Well, that's basically what I meant with

We could create a smaller source tarball ourselves and ship that instead of the huge one from upstream. And IF the tlmgr setup works good enough I don't see how this is harder than handpicking updates into tetex. I do see how it has a higher barrier to try it though ;)

I use LaTeX a lot and it didn't take long using it in slackware before I needed something that was not included in teTeX. Robby Workman's TeX Live slackbuild is great but it must be said that TeX Live is ridiculously huge.

As far as just packaging goes, if Pat wanted to just replace/update teTeX to modernise it (at least with/to something that is still supported) that might be achieved by following ppr:kut's suggestion of using a similar-sized schema from TeX Live itself. The problem is *the source*. If the source is to also be included with slackware it'll be just too damn big. If TeX Live's source was in smaller bits that might fix that problem but as far as I know it's all-or-nothing.

Maybe a good compromise is to stick with teTeX (for the moment) but in the spirit of dugan's suggestion, ``upgrade'' Robby's TeX Live slackbuild to /extra (with references to the source in the README), possibly also with some environment variables to allow a bit more control over what ``schema'' to build?

Michael

Please, you have to accept that tetex is not an option any more.

See http://www.tug.org/tetex/
De-support notice
I (Thomas Esser) have decided not to make new releases of teTeX any more (May 2006). The information below might get out of date as time goes by. I suggest anybody interested in teTeX to join the TeX Live project.

Updating tetex would be an attempt to create your own TeX-distribution. You wouldn't want to do that, for the same reason Thomas Esser stopped doing it...

I have skipped the TeX install from slack for the last five years, and installed TeXLive instead using their install. Slackbuild adds just another layer, which I was not ready to do. Pity, but necessary for serious TeX users.


Good luck!

I use everyday LaTeX and also installed TeXLive using their install. It needs not to be installed in the /usr or /usr/local trees, so it is in fact somehow independent of Slackware. One needs of course to edit the PATH and put in it the path to TeXLive binaries. That's all. TeXLive has also its own package management tool.

I think the main question is: Is the teTeX shipped with Slackware still in use today?

Like emacs, if you take the time to learn it, Dr. Knuth's TeX is a powerful tool. It's not a WYSIWYG gui, you just type away, then go back and put in the TeX stuff. I don't know of any other way to produce a camera-ready document that you can compress and email to a journal publisher. Postscript, PDF, LibreOffice, each have their place, TeX does not replace them. However, none of them produce such high-quality typesetting content with "cross-referencing, tables and figures, page layout and bibliographies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaTeX[\url]

Please consider replacing TeX with Dr. Knuth's revolutionary iTeX
http://river-valley.tv/media/conferences/tug-2010/Don-Knuth/

I'm sort of new to TeX, but the only shortcoming I've run into with the existing TeTeX package on Slackware is not having the IEEEtran.cls package built-in, which is a standard built-in document class in every other TeX installation I've seen. But, for those who need it, it's pretty small and simple to install. TeTeX has not been maintained for 7 years, and I use it regularly. In fact, I learned how to write documents with LaTeX using this unmaintained version. However, I expect that compatibility problems with ctan will crop up and become more common as the rest of the TeX community continues to move on while TeTeX stagnates. I'm a little concerned that the TeX community will become excessively homogenized and become more and more TeXLive and *buntu oriented.

I like the idea of a minimal TeXLive install if such a thing is possible, but I'm with Pat on holding off due to bloat. I run a local slackware mirror for my home LAN (slow internet connection), so I appreciate Pat's efforts to keep small source and package trees. The bloat problem with TeXLive is pretty serious imo and needs to be solved by their project. I haven't looked around at other distros to see how they split up the packages, but I imagine there must be _some_ way to build TeXLive with a minimal set of features and at a reasonable size.

Pat Volkerding's original quote:
I think the best way to do this would be to replace the existing teTeX in slackware with the ``teTeX scheme'' from TeX Live. If the following quote from rpm.pbone.net is true:

...then this sounds precisely what Pat is looking for, at least in terms of content. I wonder if licensing permits shipping a reduced TeX Live source (enough to generate/build the teTeX scheme) with slackware? If so then a script which ``trims'' the source could also be shipped (maybe in /extra, possibly along with Robby's full texlive slackbuild) so a user could re-create everything, if they wanted to (or do a full texlive install), by downloading the full source separately.

Michael

I spent about a month trying to do exactly that, which is why I say (from a position of some experience) that I think it would be easier to update the old teTeX than to try to go that route. I'm keenly aware that it would be creating a new TeX distribution -- no surprise there. But trimming down texlive and the sources seems like it would be far more complex. Not that upgrading teTeX would be simple, but I think it would be a comparatively easier path.

Wow, I had no idea that trimming down the TeX Live source would be so complex, although I guess it comes as no surprise.

I guess a third option is to just include all the source but package only the teTeX scheme: the source files linked to from Robby's slackbuild total about 1.5GB. It's a lot I guess, although already we are up to 2 DVDs for the full distribution, indeed even with another 1.5GB it would still fit on 2 DVDs.

It's far from ideal but perhaps compared to putting together a whole new TeX distribution...

Michael

Adding 1.5GB of sources is not an option. The retail DVD is a double sided disc, and the sources are already split between the two sides to make them fit.

Avoiding Dependencies :)
 

I've sent yesterday an email to a texlive developer. I've explained him that I am a latex user but I am not familiarized with its development and packaging and asked him about why he think the resultant packages on distributions were so huge.

I will not say his name or reproduce here his textual answer because I respect privacy. In resume besides accusing me to insult volunteers, insulting me, calling me troll, ignorant etc., he said that his fresh installed OS is 10G size just on packages (justifying the texlive size).

Well, this is my desktop:

Just a /home separate partition. The root partition (including the /usr with all the software) occupies 5.6G. I bet I can do with my 5.6G anything (and more) that guy do with 10G of default installation + the rest of software he needs.

It's easy to see why this gentleman doesn't see an issue in TeXLive size.

I am seriously thinking in transcribe my three novels (more than 500 pages) to Groff.

Personally, I have not had to replace teTeX with TeXLive on Slackware. My only problem has been with some
beamer classes that are present in TeXLive but not teTeX. I think there are two separate issues.
The first one is the TeX/LaTeX software from teTeX. Is it becoming obsolete (for instance pdflatex may not
be keeping up with the enhancements of the PDF file format) ? Is new software being added
to TeXLive to support more languages / produce TeX output in new formats (say DejaVu) ?
If yes, then it will become necessary in the future to upgrade that software, and the question is whether
that can be done outside of the full TeXLive.

The second issue is with the TeX/LaTeX macros that are part of TeXLive. Many of them seem
unnecessary. To give some examples, there are quite a few style files for theses (adftathesis, afthesis, fbithesis, gatech-thesis, psu-thesis etc...) articles in scientific journals (revtex, achemso,elsarticle,...) or vitae for
students at a particular engineering school (ESIEEcv...). In all these cases, one would prefer anyway the
latest style files provided by the journal or the school rather than rely on the version distributed with TeXLive which might be obsolete or buggy. Users without root access will in fact have to install the correct package in
their home directory, and modify the TEXINPUTS variable to be sure that the correct file is found first, resulting
in a waste of disk space.

There are some style files that might be more useful (say karnaugh for Karnaugh tables, ytableau for Young tableaus, dyntree for Dynkin diagrams, steinmetz for Steinmetz notation of complex numbers) and are not in teTeX, but they could be installed from CTAN by the users who need them.

To sum up, unless the software in teTeX is becoming obsolete, it is better to keep teTeX and add only a few useful/improved packages taken directly from CTAN.

No, it is not suitable for any production use.

That is a drop dead statement that I would argue is wrong. I am currently using teTeX and it is fulfilling all my requirements. By design, teTeX was meant to have longevity and I still find it viable.

Please expand on your reasons for stating this.

I am answering with my reasons. TeX has evolved a lot in the last years. Especially font handling and utf-8 handling (pdftex, luatex), as well as significant changes related to slides (beamer) are noteworthy. If simple upgrading of a few packages would do the job, I am sure someone would have done that.

As for your using of tetex, this is possible, no doubt. One of my friends is using 2.09 and is (almost) happy with it.

As always, just my 2 eurocents...

Franz

RE: tetex use
 

I disagree. Even though installing texlive is the first thing I do on my laptop, I have to admit that virtually all of my papers build just fine in tetex after I replace mathdesign with amssymb.

AMS-latex was updated last in 2011.

Classes have also changed: ftp://ftp.ams.org/pub/tex/amslatex/classes/diffs-c.txt

Which document classes did you use?

lncs, fundam, beamer, ieee, ...?

All I ever use is amsart and amsbook.