GNU bug report logs - #65889
texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

Previous Next

Full log

Message #14 received at 65889 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daniel Meißner <daniel.meissner-i4k <at> rub.de>
To: Nicolas Goaziou <mail <at> nicolasgoaziou.fr>
Cc: 65889 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#65889: texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2023 23:21:38 +0200

Hi Nicolas,

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

> Hello,
>
> Daniel Meißner via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix <at> gnu.org> writes:
>

[...]

>> I can provide a patch if desired to add texlive-xstring and
>> texlive-bigfoot to texlive-acronym’s (propagated-)inputs.  The suffix
>> package appears to be bundled with texlive-bigfoot.  Do we want to
>> unbundle it or simply add texlive-bigfoot to the (propagated-)inputs?
>
> We use dependencies specified in TeX Live itself (as in "texlive.tlpdb"
> file), for sanity reasons. There are 4000+ packages; I think it is not
> reasonable to grep through their output to find the unspecified
> dependencies. It will also be terrible when using some updater, now this
> tool can remove propagated inputs.
>
> Most dependencies issues are resolved installing collections of
> packages, such as `texlive-collection-latexrecommended'. As a data
> point, I only resolve dependencies "manually" when they would otherwise
> require me to install `texlive-collection-latexextra', which is just too
> big.
>
> AFAIC, I suggest to not fix this, as this is not worth the trouble.

I see, makes sense.  I am closing this issues then.  Thanks for your
fast reply and your hint to use collections instead.  I sometimes make a
game out of the most minimal Texlive manifest.scm for my TeX writings :D

Best

-- 
Daniel

Previous Next

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