Subject: [bug#62570] [PATCH 3/6] gnu: texlive-latex-bigfoot: Replace with texlive-bigfoot.

From: Nicolas Goaziou <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2023 15:07:12 +0200

Hello,

Simon Tournier <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 at 20:01, Nicolas Goaziou <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, there are other old TeXLive packages in this very same
>> sad situation.
>
> Well, one after the other, they will be converted. :-)

Sure thing.

However, correcting myself, as my words were too strong in this
particular case, current "texlive-latex-bigfoot" is not exactly
"broken". Running "./pre-inst-env guix build texlive-latex-bigfoot"
generates the following layout:

  /gnu/store/848cbycs3y9gqbc0c6giag1m7a53x32r-texlive-latex-bigfoot-59745
  └── share
      └── texmf-dist
          └── tex
              └── latex
                  └── bigfoot
                      ├── bigfoot.drv
                      ├── bigfoot.sty
                      ├── perpage.drv
                      ├── perpage.sty
                      ├── suffix.drv
                      └── suffix.sty
  6 directories, 6 files

So, ".sty" files are indeed properly installed. There is no
documentation, though. Also, source files are not kept in the store.

There are two approaches going on here. `simple-texlive-package' tries
to provide a tessellation of the full texlive, i.e., if you install
(assuming they are defined in Guix) every standalone texlive package,
you will get the exact full texlive distribution, whereas
`texlive-ref' + `texlive-build-system' tries to generate a minimal (a
bit too minimal considering missing documentation) working system.
I think the old way is error prone.

So, do we (not only the two of us, obviously) agree on the
`simple-texlive-package' approach? If so, what should we do about
"source"?

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou