texlive-acronyms is missing dependencies

> The following MWE does not compile with pdflatex using the modular

> texlive packages:

>

> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---

> \documentclass{article}

> \usepackage{acronym}

>

> \begin{document}

> \end{document}

> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

>

>

> It yields the following:

>

> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---

> $ guix shell texlive-scheme-basic texlive-acronym -- pdflatex acronym-mwe.tex

> This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.25 (TeX Live 2023/GNU Guix) (preloaded format=pdflatex)

> restricted \write18 enabled.

> entering extended mode

> (./acronym-mwe.tex

> LaTeX2e <2022-11-01> patch level 1

> L3 programming layer <2023-02-22> (/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls

> Document Class: article 2022/07/02 v1.4n Standard LaTeX document class

> (/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size10.clo)) (/gnu/store/v4m2fj7xhpfs7k5l97p238j1bc2ccppf-profile/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/acronym/acronym.sty

>

> ! LaTeX Error: File `suffix.sty' not found.

>

> Type X to quit or <RETURN> to proceed,

> or enter new name. (Default extension: sty)

>

> Enter file name:

> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

>

> I think this is due to missing dependencies suffix and xstring which are

> required to be installed for acronym to work. On page 10 of the package

> docs [1] it reads

>

> \RequiredPackage{suffix, xstring}

>

> 1: https://ftp.gwdg.de/pub/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/acronym/acronym.pdf

>

> 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?

> Hello,

>

> Daniel Meißner via Bug reports for GNU Guix <bug-guix@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.

> 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.

> 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.

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

>

>> 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.

>

> Couldn't we report those missing dependencies upstream then?

> Couldn't we report those missing dependencies upstream then?