Bug#1070150: texlive-latex-extra: performance regression under emulation with 2023.20240207-1

[Steev Klimaszewski <steev@kali.org>]

Package: texlive-latex-extra
Version: 2023.20240207-1
Severity: wishlist
User: devel@kali.org
Usertags: origin-kali

Dear Maintainer,

Since the 2023.20240207-1 release, there is a major performance regression when
running the tex-common postinst hook in an arm64 chroot on amd64 host.  

This was not the case with 2022.20230122-3.

When running the hook with the 2023.20240207, this step takes around 3 hours.

I'm guessing that this is related to enabling lua on aarch64 finally, but I'm
not familiar at all with latex and how to get the smallest possible test case to
show the issue.

A way to reproduce the issue would be to install debootstrap, qemu-user-static
and systemd-nspawn and then run apt-get install texlive-latex-extra

On an arm64 host (VM on an original M1 Macbook Air), this is fine

sudo debootstrap --arch arm64 stable stable
sudo systemd-nspawn -D stable
time apt-get install texlive-latex-extra -y

real   1m4.121s
user   0m52.893s
system 0m6.116s

(due to the t64 transition, testing is currentl unable to debootstrap)

sudo debootstrap --arch arm64 sid sid
sudo systemd-nspawn -D sid
time apt-get install texlive-latex-extra -y

real 1m24.647s
user 1m14.897s
sys  0m6.558s

In the qemu emulated build however, 

sudo debootstrap --arch arm64 stable stable
sudo systemd-nspawn -D stable
time apt-get install texlive-latex-extra -y

real 13m14.171s
user 13m26.363s
sys  0m53.424s

texlive-latex-recommended: 2022.20230122-3

sudo debootstrap --arch arm64 sid sid
sudo systemd-nspawn -D sid
time apt-get install texlive-latex-extra -y

real 181m11.687s
user 181m43.534s
sys  1m5.422s

texlive-latex-recommended: 2023.20240207-1


So the version of latex in stable took less than 15 minutes to install, but the
version in testing and unstable both take 2 1/2 hours!  I did also test
2024.20240313.70630+ds-1 from experimental and it also takes the 2 1/2 hours.

Currently, we are working around this by forcing our package list to not install
any of the latex packages, but it would be nice to be able to have the packages
installed instead of telling end users to install them manually.

If you need me to do more testing or any sort of additional information, please
let me know!

-- steev


-- System Information:
Debian Release: kali-rolling
  APT prefers experimental
  APT policy: (1, 'experimental'), (1, 'unstable')
Architecture: arm64 (aarch64)

Kernel: Linux 6.8.8 (SMP w/8 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_UNSIGNED_MODULE
Locale: LANG=C.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE not set
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages texlive-latex-extra depends on:
pn  libcommons-logging-java    <none>
pn  libpdfbox-java             <none>
pn  preview-latex-style        <none>
ii  python3                    3.11.6-1
pn  tex-common                 <none>
pn  texlive-base               <none>
pn  texlive-binaries           <none>
pn  texlive-latex-recommended  <none>
pn  texlive-pictures           <none>

Versions of packages texlive-latex-extra recommends:
pn  default-jre                     <none>
pn  libspreadsheet-parseexcel-perl  <none>
pn  texlive-fonts-recommended       <none>
pn  texlive-plain-generic           <none>

Versions of packages texlive-latex-extra suggests:
pn  icc-profiles             <none>
ii  libfile-which-perl       1.27-2
ii  python3-pygments         2.17.2+dfsg-1
pn  texlive-latex-extra-doc  <none>
pn  texlive-science          <none>