Bug 469430 – app-text/jadetex-3.13-r4 overwrites reasonable latex configuration

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE

[Description Martin von Gagern 2013-05-11 12:05:25 UTC]

app-text/jadetex-3.13-r4 will install a file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/80jadetex.cnf with the following settings, among others:

main_memory.latex = 1100000
param_size.latex = 1500
stack_size.latex = 1500
hash_extra.latex = 15000
string_vacancies.latex = 45000
save_size.latex = 5000
pool_size.latex = 500000
max_strings.latex = 55000
font_mem_size.latex= 400000

This overwrites settings from the texmf.cnf shipped with latex which would be much higher:

main_memory = 3000000 % words of inimemory available; also applies to inimf&mp
param_size = 10000      % simultaneous macro parameters, also applies to MP
stack_size = 5000       % simultaneous input sources
hash_extra = 200000
string_vacancies = 90000
save_size = 50000       % for saving values outside current group
pool_size = 3250000
max_strings = 500000
font_mem_size = 3000000

In my opinion, it doesn't make a lot of sense that installing some package degrades the capabilities of some other package. It took me quite a while to figure out that this was the reason why I could not compile packages with latex which could be compiled just fine with pdflatex, simply because I was using too many packages for that pool size.

Sure this is a config file, so I could edit it. But I suggest changing the default, for the very reason that this kind of error is so hard to trace to the actual cause. Perhaps the ebuild should simply stop installing 80jadetex.cnf, or strip that down to really only affect jadetex itself.

[Comment 1 Martin von Gagern 2013-05-11 12:11:19 UTC]

Note that according to bug #21501 the intention behind 80jadetex.cnf was to INCREASE some limits, not to restruct them. So with recent lexlive (and texlive 2012 is stable) and the defaults it ships, I'd say that file is now obsolete.

[Comment 2 Horst Prote 2016-06-28 13:20:22 UTC]

(In reply to Martin von Gagern from comment #1)
> I'd say that file is now obsolete.
I agree! But three years later it's still there.

[Comment 3 Michał Górny 2020-08-24 07:09:50 UTC]

Package removed.