On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 10:04:14 +0100 l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > Eric Bavier <ericbav...@openmailbox.org> skribis: > > > On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 17:41:44 +0100 > > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) wrote: > > > >> Andreas Enge <andr...@enge.fr> skribis: > >> > >> > 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. > >> > > >> > >> Not sure. Eric added the dependency on TeX Live in 97003b5c. > >> Eric, WDYT? > > > > Gnuplot looks for some binaries to determine whether and where to > > install some latex sty files. As long as those are still installed with > > texlive-minimal, that should be fine. I used texlive-bin in order to > > remove the heavyweight texlive dependency. > > Would Gnuplot’s own sty files still be installed if we remove the > dependency?
gnuplot's configure script will refuse to install the latex cfg for the epslatex terminal unless those binaries are found. This seems like an artificial limitation, and could probably be patched out. > Or are they redundant with what TeX Live provides? They don't seem redundant, but I honestly don't know exactly what they are used for. `~Eric
