GNU bug report logs - #62570
[PATCH 0/6] Fix name and dependencies of a few Texlive packages

Previous Next

Package: guix-patches;

Reported by: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>

Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2023 15:31:01 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune <at> gmail.com>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>, 62570 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Cc: Ricardo Wurmus <rekado <at> elephly.net>, Timothy Sample <samplet <at> ngyro.com>, Ludovic Courtès <ludo <at> gnu.org>
Subject: [bug#62570] [PATCH 3/6] gnu: texlive-latex-bigfoot: Replace with texlive-bigfoot.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2023 18:48:00 +0200
Hi Nicolas, all,

Thanks, the series LGTM.

In the context of discussion about SWH coverage, see [1,2,3,4], this
change is very welcome because it factorize the package ’source’ as more
or less we discussed in [4].

1: https://yhetil.org/guix/87v8j0bqdd.fsf <at> gnu.org
2: https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/swh-devel/2023-03/msg00009.html
3: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/43442#20
4: https://issues.guix.gnu.org/62712


Other said, that’s said… The good ol’ svn-fetch,

> -    (source (origin
> -              (method svn-fetch)
> -              (uri (texlive-ref "latex" "bigfoot"))

is replaced by ’simple-texlive-package’,

> +  (let ((template (simple-texlive-package
> +                   "texlive-bigfoot"
> +                   (list "doc/latex/bigfoot/"
> +                         "source/latex/bigfoot/"
> +                         "tex/latex/bigfoot/")
> +                   (base32
> +                    "140b4bbjcgajd1flznmi3ga6lx5pna2nxybr2dqm9515lny8gwf0"))))
> +    (package
> +      (inherit template)

However, it goes from this,

    $ tree -L 6 $(guix build --no-grafts texlive-latex-bigfoot -S)
    /gnu/store/z9kc9qbg40nl0azivpmfmhrnqb6dnmqm-texlive-latex-bigfoot-59745-checkout
    ├── bigfoot.drv
    ├── bigfoot.dtx
    ├── bigfoot.ins
    ├── perpage.drv
    ├── perpage.dtx
    ├── suffix.drv
    └── suffix.dtx

    0 directories, 7 files

to that,

    $ tree -L 6 $(./pre-inst-env guix build --no-grafts texlive-latex-bigfoot -S)
    guix build: package 'texlive-latex-bigfoot' has been superseded by 'texlive-bigfoot'
    /gnu/store/rws86c5hi1r25f14h95hiqzgcw8rbir2-texlive-bigfoot-59745-checkout
    ├── doc
    │   └── latex
    │       └── bigfoot
    │           ├── bigfoot.pdf
    │           ├── COPYING
    │           ├── Makefile
    │           ├── perpage.pdf
    │           ├── README
    │           └── suffix.pdf
    ├── source
    │   └── latex
    │       └── bigfoot
    │           ├── bigfoot.drv
    │           ├── bigfoot.dtx
    │           ├── bigfoot.ins
    │           ├── perpage.drv
    │           ├── perpage.dtx
    │           ├── suffix.drv
    │           └── suffix.dtx
    └── tex
        └── latex
            └── bigfoot
                ├── bigfoot.sty
                ├── perpage.sty
                └── suffix.sty

    9 directories, 16 files


Here, I have two questions (unrelated to the patch series ;-)):

 1. Does it make sense to keep the PDF and .sty files?
 2. Which of the both is the closest of upstream structure?

    Assuming SWH ingested TUG and other related TeX sources, which is
    still WIP AFAIK, it would be simpler if we store an identifier
    (swhid or others) that we can query via SWH API without parsing and
    rebuild from their content the files we need for the checksum.


Cheers,
simon




This bug report was last modified 2 years and 113 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.