Font packages for TeX (was: Too many conflicts? (tetex vs. texlive))
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 13:03 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Let font packages depend on tex-common.
That sounds like the right goal.
> Is anybody writing this together - ideally in form of a patch to
> Debian-TeX-Policy.sgml?
I have to admit I have somewhat lost track here. To many messages in to
many threads. ;-)
Trying to get an overview on all this:
In order to be usable for teTeX/TeX Live, a font package has to call
update-updmap
mktexlsr [<TEXMFSYSVAR> <TEXMFMAIN>]
updmap-sys
update-updamp is in tex-common which the font package depends on. That
should be fine.
mktexlsr and updmap-sys are in tetex-bin/texlive-basicbin. Since the
font package does not depend on them, it might happen that the font
package is configured when tetex-bin/texlive-basicbin is unpacked but
not configured yet. It might also happen, that the font package is
configured without tetex-bin/texlive-basicbin being present at all.
Right?
So the main question for me is whether or not calling mktexlsr and
updmap-sys with an unconfigured tetex-bin/texlive-basicbin can cause any
harm.
If 'yes', one needs to find out the tetex-bin/texlive-basicbin is
actually configured. How could one do that?
If 'no', one could either use something like
mktexlsr [<TEXMFSYSVAR> <TEXMFMAIN>] || true
updmap-sys || true
or
if which mktexlsr >/dev/null 2>&1 && which updmap-sds >/dev/null 2>&1; then
mktexlsr [<TEXMFSYSVAR> <TEXMFMAIN>]
updmap-sys
else
echo "No TeX-System present."
fi
I am not sure about the relative merits of the two approaches.
In addition, I find it interesting that dh_installxfonts adds
if which update-fonts-dir >/dev/null 2>&1; then
update-fonts-scale Type1;update-fonts-dir Type1
fi
*and* a Depends on xutils. Is this overkill or is there something in the
policy demanding this?
BTW, I am not sure how easy it would be to move mktexlsr and updmap to
tex-common. After all, both these programs use kpsewhich (and friends).
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: