On Sun, 9 Jan 2022 07:28:51 +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Sun, 9 Jan 2022 13:09:19 +0900 > Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > >> Hi Maruo, >> (+Cc: Jon, linux-doc) >> >> On Thu, 6 Jan 2022 04:37:07 +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>> Em Thu, 6 Jan 2022 11:00:08 +0900 >>> Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >> [...] >>>> Longer term (for CentOS stream9 or RHEL 9), we might need to ask >>>> EPEL maintainers to add texlive-ctex. >>> >>> Longer term, the script is actually fixing a broken dependency issue >>> on distros. So, bugzillas for Fedora/Debian & derivated ones should be >>> opened for "texlive-xecjk" package to also select "texlive-ctex" >>> (or whatever other name those packages have on distros). >> >> FWIW, I asked Karl Berry, who is the chief maintainer of upstream >> TeX Live, to add a dependency on ctex to xecjk [1]. > > Thanks for forwarding this question to him and to address it on distros! > >> >> [1]: https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2022-January/047648.html >> >> Karl has added the dependency to xecjk as of rev 61529 [2]. >> >> [2]: https://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2022-January/047654.html >> >> On up-to-date vanilla TeX Live 2021 (>= rev61529): >> >> $ tlmgr info --data depends xecjk >> ctex >> >> With xecjk < rev61529 >> >> $ tlmgr info --data depends xecjk >> (no output) > > Nice! Yeah, this is the long term solution, but still won't prevent > people/distros based on older packages to keep using packages > without such requirements. > >> This dependency is expected to be reflected in the TeX Live >> packaging for next Fedora release. > > Yeah, Fedora is usually keen to changes. > >> OTOH, as I mentioned earlier, >> EPEL 9 (for CentOS stream9) doesn't have texlive-ctex at the >> moment, so we need to see what happens there when RHEL 9 is ready. > > Yes. RHEL/EPEL is usually a lot more conservative. > >> Note: the xecjk -> ctex dependency is already taken care of >> by openSUSE's TeX Live packages. > > On both Tumbleweed and on Leap? I mean on Tumbleweed only. Leap's xecjk is v3.4.8 and has no dependency on ctex. > >> As for Ubuntu/Debian, it looks like TeX Live/Debian packaging >> maintainer, Norbert Preining, has no intention of adding >> dependency of texlive-xetex -> texlive-lang-chinese as can be >> seen in his responses to a Debian Bug report [3]. >> I think this is a reasonable choice as most xetex users don't >> use xecjk and texlive-lang-chinese is large in size. >> >> [3]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=961703 > > Debian package maintainer could reconsider it after the upstream > dependency addition, but probably only for SID and yet-to-be-released > versions. > Debian is very conservative on their releases. > Even if SID gains such dependency fix, I would be surprised > if they end porting a dependency change like that to Bullseye > (which should be the latest version for ~1.5 years - with LTS > extending it for ~3.5 years). > > It sounds worth mentioning about the texlive dependency decision at > the Debian bug. I'm afraid I don't think so. At Debian Latex wiki [3], they say: If you want to add support for your language (other than english) in TeX Live, search for texlive-lang [4] and install your language. [3]: https://wiki.debian.org/Latex [4]: https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=texlive-lang This is the Debian's policy of TeX Live packaging. I wouldn't complain if they say "Just install both of texlive-xetex and texlive-lang-chinese if you want xecjk to work." There are a lot of inter-collection dependencies in upstream TeX Live, but many of then are ignored in TeX Live/Debian packages. For example, ctex has a dependency on xecjk (reverse of the newly added one) in upstream, but Debian's texlive-lang-chinese does not depend on texlive-xetex. Thanks, Akira > >> Thanks, Akira >> >>> >>> Worth mentioning that the script dependency-checking is should be smart >>> enough to not break once texlive distro maintainers fix such issues. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mauro >>>
