On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 06:04:17PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> skribis:
> > This was the original reason (plus easier debugging) that I kept the
> > internal packages -bin and -texmf public; I think it was a mistake,
> > since it seems to lead to a lot of confusion.
> > So I will hide both the internal packages one of these days.
> OK.
Well, in the end this is not so easily possible.
gnuplot depends on texlive-bin as a native-input. I replaced this by
texlive-minimal, but I think the native input can be dropped completely.
The only difference I could see was the installation of a file
/gnu/store/cgkbv12bpd2v5razsj2nkx7xfrf6fxy0-gnuplot-5.0.2/share/texmf/tex/latex/gnuplot/gnuplot.cfg
that contains essentially nothing:
%% A configuration file for the epslatex terminal by Harald Harders.
%% This file is part of Gnuplot.
%%
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\endinput
%%
%% End of file `gnuplot.cfg'.
and of postscript files in
/gnu/store/cgkbv12bpd2v5razsj2nkx7xfrf6fxy0-gnuplot-5.0.2/share/gnuplot/5.0/PostScript
which gv cannot display.
Is it okay to drop the dependency?
Second, there is gettext with a native input texlive-bin.
It is supposedly used for tests; I did not see anything evident in the
logs (but then, searching for "tex" in "gettext" logs, it is easy to overlook
things...). Probably that is overkill, and I would assume we can safely
remove the input. But then, this would have to be done in core-updates.
What do you think?
Andreas
