Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Agreed up to here. > >> /usr/bin/tangle >> /usr/bin/tie >> /usr/bin/ctangle >> /usr/bin/weave >> /usr/bin/ctie >> /usr/bin/cweave (CWEB stuff) > > Hmmm. These are small binaries with very little in the way of > dependencies. Could probably lose them to tetex-bin-extra or > tetex-bin-litprog, though.
That was all I was talking about: Creating a list of executables that are not needed in the new tetex-bin-core which is intended as the canonical build-dependency. What I have in mind is a tetex-bin-core package that contains everything that is needed to run latex, pdflatex, tex, bibtex, makeindex. Nothing more, nothing less. >> /usr/bin/dvitype (human "readable" output, for validation and as a reference >> implementation) > > Not sure this is a good idea to lose: it's part of DEK's original > TeXware suite, and it is expected by some users. But would you object putting it into tetex-bin-extra? > Yes, these are also uncommonly used, IMHO. > >> /usr/bin/dvired > > Keep this one! It's only a tiny shell-script! Keep it in tetex-bin-core? Why? > Not sure about these. > >> /usr/bin/dvipdft (should go with dvipdfm or stay with it) > > Don't understand your comment. If we have dvipdfm in tetex-bin-core, we should also have this one; if dvidfm is in -extra, dvipdft should be in extra, too. >> /usr/bin/texlinks(only useful for local customization in Debian) > > ??? texlinks is designed for creation of format links according to fmtutil.cnf, but all formats defined for tetex-bin-core (mf-nowin, (pdf)tex, (pdf)latex)) already have their links in the package. On a Debian system, it is only useful if you create entries for local formats in fmt.d/. I think that we can expect that people that want to do this will have tetex-bin-extra installed, anyway (or know how to create the correct symlink manually). >> mpost, >> mpto, >> makempx >> /usr/bin/makempy (MetaPost) >> /usr/bin/mptopdf > > I would suggest that MetaPost is now regarded as a core component of a > modern TeX distribution, so I'd suggest keeping it in the core. Hm, well. So far, I have not looked at tetex-bin-core (and the new tetex-base) as "core of a modern TeX distribution", but rather as "what is needed in a Build-Depends". From this point of view I doubt that MetaPost has its place in -core. What do others think? >> Furthermore, I think that the following are probably not necessary > > Not necessary at all? No, I think they should stay in -extra, but not > be lost completely: I always implied "not necessary for -core". >> /usr/bin/pktogf (convert packed font files to generic font files) >> /usr/bin/gftopk (and back) > > This is used by mktexpk! So we should keep them in -core. I just checked whether we distribute any gf files, and since this is not the case, it seemed not necessary to me. But we should keep in mind that add-on font packages might have .gf files. >> /usr/bin/gsftopk (probably no longer needed, since xdvik links against libt1) > > Ditto, although you may be right in your comment. How do we check that? Or do we simply keep everything that *might* be called from mktexpk? > >> /usr/bin/ps2pk (creates a TeX pkfont from a type1 PostScript font) > > Ditto. But only (as an alternative to gsftopk) if you change mktex.opt, which isn't a conffile. Should it be? Probably yes. >> /usr/bin/allcm >> /usr/bin/allec >> /usr/bin/allneeded (create many CM/EC pk fonts at once) > > Why throw away these scripts? In order to keep tetex-bin-core as small as possible. Not because of disk space, but in order to keep it simply. I don't think that any sane mind will call allcm in debian/rules before running latex over their documentation. Am I insane myself? Thank you for your comments, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
