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

* gnu/packages/tex.scm (texlive-bigfoot): New variable.
(texlive-latex-bigfoot): Deprecate package.
(texlive-pstool): Use new variable.
---
 gnu/packages/tex.scm | 82 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

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@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    guix build: package 'texlive-latex-bigfoot' has been superseded by 'texlive-bigfoot'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

Hello,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> Thanks, the series LGTM.

Thank you for the feedback!

> 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?

PDF files are the documentation. They belong to the "doc" output. It
seems useful to allow users to get package definitions, too.

The ".sty" files are the actual package, i.e., what gets loaded when you
insert \require{bigfoot}. IOW, the previous package definition was
utterly broken since it didn't provide any usable code anyway.
Unfortunately, there are other old TeXLive packages in this very same
sad situation.

What might be removed, however, is the "source" part. As it was already
suggested on this ML (I cannot find the reference, sorry), you can
retrieve source with "guix build -S" already, so it is not terribly
useful to also put it in the store. OTOH, I think it doesn't free much
space.

>  2. Which of the both is the closest of upstream structure?

The new package checkout matches exactly the layout of the full TeXLive
distribution.

Regards,
-- 
Nicolas Goaziou

Hi,

Thanks for your explanations.

On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 at 20:01, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> wrote:

> Unfortunately, there are other old TeXLive packages in this very same
> sad situation.

Well, one after the other, they will be converted. :-)


>>  2. Which of the both is the closest of upstream structure?
>
> The new package checkout matches exactly the layout of the full TeXLive
> distribution.

Now, I have to check if this content is registered by Software
Heritage. :-)

Cheers,
simon

Hello,

Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 07 Apr 2023 at 20:01, Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> 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,

Hello,

Nicolas Goaziou <mail@nicolasgoaziou.fr> writes:

> 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"?

I applied the whole set. The question above is still open, but I'm
closing this particular report for now.

Thank you for your input.

Regards,