@ronaldtse please add project to appveyor and give me a link to build status icon

Hello, I posted the issue at brucemiller/LaTeXML#1853 and the developer referenced me to you.

In short the problem is that chocolatey says that the install was successful but the command is still not recognized.

Regarding:

From @brucemiller

It'd be a shame to disable tests, since that catches installation problems earlier rather than later.
Which tests produce this message?

@CAMOBAP795 could you help answer @brucemiller ? Thanks!

Initially, I have tried the approach with beta branch but it looks not very good to maintain

A better approach to do both stable and beta releases from main branch, to do this:

• update release-tag to correctly handle -pre versions
• update tools/chocolateyinstall.ps1 to correctly handle git install or zip install

Currently, we use https://dlmf.nist.gov/LaTeXML/x7.png

Per review comment:

For the next package version can you please host the icon on your package sources and link to it via a CDN: https://docs.chocolatey.org/en-us/create/create-packages#package-icon-guidelines

@ronaldtse do you have any idea how to accomplish this, maybe already use some CDN where we can put this icon?

@dginev is currently addressing the problems we ran into here: brucemiller/LaTeXML#1109

• Failing comparisons due to `kpsewhich: warning: running with administrator privileges’
• A failing test with MiKTeX

Once that is merged/released we probably need an update.

The repository github.com/metanorma has been set up to host all Metanorma related work. This is one such piece of work. While the migration will be slow (there is a lot to do, and a lot of interdependencies), we need to schedule migration for all related repositories.

As described by @dginev here https://chocolatey.org/packages/miktex#comment-4420594892 , the Chocolatey MiKTeX installation binary changes location (path) on every release. There is a large time gap between "MiKTeX release" and "Chocolatey MiKTeX package release", which renders our package unusable (unable to install MiKTeX).

While there is TeXLive on Windows, their Chocolatey package is severely outdated (from 2012) and unusable.

From discussions we have decided to remove the dependency of the TeX system from this package, since LaTeXML can function without it. The user can choose whatever TeX distribution they want and have to install manually.

Ref:

From @brucemiller:

For Windows & Chocolatey, maybe that latter approach
makes the most sense for LaTeXML itself --- omit the
dependency and let the users install what they like,
even outside of Chocolatey.

From me:

I think this might be the best choice. Let the user decide their own setup. What we could do is to test Chocolatey LaTeXML under both cases: if a TeX distribution is or is not present.

This task is to :

1. Remove dependency of MiKTeX from the package
2. Update AppVeyor tests to install a TeX distribution automatically (and share this AppVeyor with brucemiller/LaTeXML#1109 (comment) )

https://github.com/metanorma/chocolatey-latexml/runs/4209433199?check_suite_focus=true

@ronaldtse could you please doublecheck METANORMA_CI_PAT_TOKEN permissions for this repo

P.S. also could you please rename default branch master -> main from settings

From Chocolatey:

@CAMOBAP is this still valid? Thanks.

'latexml.beta' is Submitted.
Current status = Waiting for Maintainer to take corrective action

chocolatey-ops left the following comment(s):

latexml.beta has failed automated validation.

Requirements

Requirements represent the minimum quality of a package that is acceptable. When a package version has failed requirements, the package version requires fixing and/or response by the maintainer. Provided a Requirement has flagged correctly, it must be fixed before the package version can be approved. The exact same version should be uploaded during moderation review.

The package id includes a prerelease version name which should be included only in the version of the package. More...
Notes

Notes typically flag things for both you and the reviewer to go over. Sometimes this is the use of things that may or may not be necessary given the constraints of what you are trying to do and/or are harder for automation to flag for other reasons. Items found in Notes might be Requirements depending on the context. A package version can be approved without addressing Note comments.

The package id includes dots (.). Usually the package id is separated by '-' instead of dots (except in the case of *.install and *.portable). The reviewer will ensure this is not a new package. More...
Attention - DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE!

No human moderators see packages until automated checks are passed or the maintainer uses the review comments box to respond. This is very important to understand, if a package has failed any automated checks, you must take action to fix or respond.
ATTENTION: If your package is failing any automated checks, the ONLY way to get in front of a human moderator is to follow the instructions in the next step.
If you need to update or respond to package review information, please login and visit your package page (listed below). Use the Add to Review Comments box ONLY, Disqus/Gist comments will not reach a human reviewer.
This may include review comments prior to the automated checks, check the status on the package - it must be in 'Ready' or 'Responded' to be in front of a human moderator.
You can also self-reject packages in certain scenarios - see self-reject for more information.
Package Url: https://chocolatey.org/packages/latexml.beta/0.8.4 
Maintainer(s): ribose

Maintainer Notes

If we've asked you to make changes, repush your updated package with the exact same version (unless the change we requested was based on an incorrect version).

According to metanorma/metanorma.org#83 , these packages in LaTeXML depend on external TeX distribution.

color.sty
colordvi.sty
ntheorem.sty
pgfkeys.code
pgfmath.code
siunitx.sty
tikz.sty
xcolor.sty

So the test for testing integration with MiKTeX could use any of these packages, such as ntheorem or color.

For xcolor, @dginev says:

Currently latexml won't stop you from using a package that may require a tex distribution, since in some cases you skirt away from the dependency. For instance xcolor only requires the tex distribution if you use the extended option set, but would be OK without one if you just load it with no options.

Originally posted by @ronaldtse in #7 (comment)

API key is now called secrets.CHOCOLATEY_API_KEY.

'latexml' is Rejected.
chocolatey-ops left the following comment(s):

Unfortunately there has not been progress to move latexml v0.8.6 towards an approved status within 15 days after the last review message, so we need to close (reject) the package version at this time. If you want to pick this version up and move it towards approval in the future, use the contact site admins link on the package page and we can move it back into a submitted status so you can submit updates.

Status Change - Changed status of package from 'submitted' to 'rejected'.

The package was rejected by chocolatey-ops on 14 Nov 2021.