Splitting the teTeX packages (was: Bug#331667: tetex-bin: pdflatex - Error when creating pdf from doxygen's latex: File `fancyhdr.sty' not found.)
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 17:52 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
> > A file as fundamental/often referred to as fancyhdr.sty should be in
> > tetex-base, not tetex-extra. But that is not what the OP means. ;-)
>
> Do you really think so? If we do larger rearrangements between
> tetex-base and tetex-extra, I'd rather do it the other way round and
> make tetex-base as small as it can possibly be while still being useful
> as a build-dependency - i.e. for processing generated LaTeX code.
I think that is the right goal for tetex-base. IMO the easiest way to
achieve this goal is to reduce the number of fonts in tetex-base. Yes, I
know that I am arguing for inclusion of the bluesky fonts and maybe the
URW fonts (the metrics from PSNFSS have to be in tetex-base, though).
But the rest of the fonts is not needed in tetex-base. At least I can't
imagine anybody using antt for documentation. This font allown brings
15M to tetex-base, which is about the size of TEXMF/tex/latex (including
things like beamer). And then there are antp, belleek, pxfonts, txfonts
...
Simply put, splitting a TeX distribution in any sensible manner is
really difficult IMO. And thinking about including or not including a
tiny package like fancyhdr (36K for the style file) is just wasted
resources. Unfortunately taking care of fonts more difficult than sinple
style files, as they tend to spread over many different directories.
Also, it might make sense to move ConTeXt to tetex-extra (without
supp-pdf.tex and supp-mis.tex, though). Same for fontinst. But I doubt
that it is worth going through each LaTeX package in teTeX and trying to
decide if it is common enough to be in tetex-base.
BTW, I just noticed that amsmath (another required part of LaTeX) is in
tetex-extra, too. And /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/dvipdfm/dvipdfm.def
looks like a part of graphics ...
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: