[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Use of %texlive-revision and %texlive-tag in tex.scm
From: |
Nathan Benedetto Proença |
Subject: |
Re: Use of %texlive-revision and %texlive-tag in tex.scm |
Date: |
Tue, 06 Jul 2021 15:00:19 -0300 |
Thank you Xinglu for letting me know of Thiago's efforts.
And thank you Thiago for your work!
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauermann@kolabnow.com> writes:
> Hello,
>
> Em segunda-feira, 5 de julho de 2021, às 14:09:24 -03, Xinglu Chen
> escreveu:
>> FYI, someone else is already workin on upgrading Texlive to 2021 on the
>> ‘core-updates’ branch (Texlive is already at 2020 on core-updates).
>>
>> <https://issues.guix.gnu.org/49408>
>>
>> Maybe you would be interested in helping out?
>
> Indeed, that would be awesome. One way to help would be with more testing
> of the TeX Live 2021 patches. I’m not actually a TeX user, so the only
> testing I did was building the “texlive*” packages, the Guix manual and
> running the `tests/texlive.scm` test. It would be great to have someone who
> actually uses TeX involved in this process. :-)
>
> Also of course feel free to propose or submit changes if you see anything
> in the patches which you think could be improved.
As I type, I am building texlive from your repo, so that I can get some
use of it and see if I have suggestions.
> From the original email:
>
> Em segunda-feira, 5 de julho de 2021, às 11:03:46 -03, Nathan Benedetto
> Proença escreveu:
>> You see, they give me the impression that Guix is really concerned about
>> upgrading *all* of texlive at once.
>> These variables tell me I should go to the file texlive.scm and bump the
>> tag and revision, and then handle all the broken hashes.
>
> That’s what I did. :-)
>
>> Hence, it seems to me that any attempt to upgrade the texlive package
>> would have to be done in a separate branch, which would only be merged
>> into master when all the packages are upgraded.
>
> Yes, because updating texlive causes thousands of packages to be rebuilt.
> For example:
>
> $ guix refresh --list-dependent texlive-bin | tr ' ' '\n' | wc -l
> 2020
>
>> Is this the case?
>
> My impression from working on this TeX Live update is that this is indeed
> the case.
>
>> And if so, why?
>
> I don’t know why, but it makes sense to me.
> As I mentioned before, I’m not a TeX user and I’m not familiar with its
> ecosystem, but my impression is that TeX Live is produced and also supposed
> to be consumed as a consistent whole. Mixing and matching packages from
> different revisions of the TeX Live Subversion repository would mean that
> you’re running a “Frankenstein” which no one else is running¹, and so you
> have bigger chances of running into problems that don’t affect anyone else.
>
>> In any case, as this may be a choice between shipping stable and
>> up-to-date packages, and as I am new to contributing to Guix, I found
>> fitting to ask.
>
> That is the reasoning which makes the current arrangement make sense to me.
> Note that there is a third choice: update all of TeX Live at once, but do
> so more frequently and take the packages straight from the trunk branch,
> rather than a tag. This is what upstream recommends, actually:
>
> https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2021-June/047187.html
Of course, software is always more complex than you expect at the
outset.
Both the --list-dependents count and the email thread you linked provide
great arguments for treating TeXLive as a monolith, and I am glad you
started this work.
Honestly, TeXLive is so huge I cannot confidently say that I am
competent enough to test it.
It also seems to be a domain which is hard to automatically test.
I will actually work with this patch for the upcoming weeks and, and
comment on the patch or send my own patch if I find something.
> ¹ This the story I’m referring to, of course: https://xkcd.com/1589/
Sure, this is my canonical version.
I have heard rumors about someone called "Mary Shelley" exploiting the
fact that Frankenstein is public domain to release her own joke version
of the comic.