[tex-live] a few thoughts on automatical dependency lists validation

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> Karl Berry <karl at freefriends.org> writes:

[...]

 > There is no harm in adding package-level dependencies, especially
 > of "important" packages like beamer, when the issue arises and the
 > solution is clear.

 > We definitely have no plans to try to systematically identify and
 > record all dependencies of all packages.

	I'd say that it's technically infeasible with the set of tools
	currently implemented.

	Would there be a tool to automatically validate (at least some
	of) the dependencies, it wouldn't be a big deal to record them
	all.

	The basic (if not obvious) ideas beyond this tool could be:

	* get the minimal possible TeX Live installation in a temporary
	  directory; install a package with all of its dependencies on
	  top of it;

	* ``confine'' the installation, so that nothing (except of the
	  basic system tools) will ever be used from outside of the
	  installation tree;

	* if the package provides any LaTeX classes, try to compile a
	  minimal possible test .tex file using each of them, e. g.:

\documentclass {CLASS}

\begin {document}
  Hello, world!
\end {document}

	  check for the errors;

	* likewise for the LaTeX packages, e. g.:

\documentclass {minimal}

\usepackage {PACKAGE}

\begin {document}
  Hello, world!
\end {document}

	* in the case of errors, check the log file for any missing
	  files; check the database for these files; make a report;

	* allow packages to supply these test .tex files, to override
	  the ones autogenerated by the tool;

	* once the package is checked, destroy the whole installation
	  directory before trying another one (unless, say, there were
	  errors and a kind of ``debug'' mode is in use.)