Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

zoqaeski · 2010-12-02 07:08:36

I use LaTeX (normally XeLaTeX) for most of my document preparation work, and have generally installed TeX-Live packages from the repositories. Some people have reported weird things happening with the repo packages (I haven't had any issues) and some others have stated they've found the TeXLive net install to be much more reliable.

So I'm curious: which way is the best way to install a TeXLive system and keep it up-to-date? What are the pros and cons of each method?

frabjous · 2010-12-02 19:49:22

My discussion will perhaps naturally be one-sided, since I've never actually installed or tried to use the Arch packages, and I don't really have a clear sense of how often they're updated, but I'd put it like this.

Think of the reasons that lead you to install Arch as opposed to some other Linux distro. These are the same reasons for using the net installer as opposed to the Arch packages. With the net installer, you get tlmgr, the TeXlive package manager, and you get complete control over your TeXlive installation. You can install as many or as few individual packages as you want, whereas with the Arch packages they come in clumps and you have to take the whole clump even if you only need part of it. You get access to new versions of packages as soon as they're available, and you can update daily. These are close to the same reasons I choose Arch over Ubuntu or something like that.

However, sometimes things break. I recently had a problem with the hyperref package (described here), but the problem lasted less than day, since I got the broken version one day, and the fixed version a day later. (On the other hand, if something happens to have been broken when the Arch packages were created, as siunitx recently was, then you're basically stuck with the broken version until the Arch repos are updated, even if a fixed version of siunitx is already available.)

The main disadvantage I can see for using the net installer from TUG/CTAN is that it may cause problems if you want to use pacman (or a AUR helper) to install TeX-related programs that are not part of TeXlive itself, such as a LaTeX editor (texmakerx or kile or lyx, etc.), or a conversion program, etc., which lists texlive as a dependency. My way around this is to create a PKGBUILD for a dummy-package which "provides" equivalences of all the Arch TeXlive packages. (I'd be happy to share it if you want.) There might be a better way, but this works for me.

But for most people, it probably doesn't matter too much unless there's something newer than the Arch packages which for some reason you really need.

There used to be a tllocalmgr or something like that for the Arch packages which gave you something more like the power of tlmgr, but I gather that's not compatible with TeXlive 2010...?

Last edited by frabjous (2010-12-02 19:51:40)

robsonpeixoto · 2011-11-02 11:58:14

frabjous, can you share the PKGBUILD for a dummy-package here or on AUR, please?

frabjous · 2011-11-02 12:08:37

pmav99 has already posted a modified version of it on AUR: here

nexus7 · 2011-11-02 12:11:37

robsonpeixoto wrote:

frabjous, can you share the PKGBUILD for a dummy-package here or on AUR, please?

I doubt this deserves to be an 'official PKGBUILD', as you can do this easily do it yourself. Here is mine:

pkgname=texlive-dummy
pkgver=1.0
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="TeX typesetting program"
arch=(i686 x86_64)
license=('custom')
provides=('tetex' 'texlive-bin' 'texlive-core' 'texinfo')
conflicts=('tetex' 'texlive-bin' 'texlive-core')
build() {
/bin/true
}

Name it whatever you like.

Sorry frabjous. --> oh, you were even faster!

Regarding the mentioned PKGUILD: Once you decided not to use Arch's TL-packages, IMO you really don't need such a long list of conflicts and provides, since all of those packages require texlive-bin and/or texlive-core. Well, if you want to, replace texlive-bin and texlive-core with texlive-most and texlive-lang, but also this is not necessary. -- I've been using my dummy for years and haven't got any trouble yet installing third party TL/(La)TeX-stuff ((added:)) or updates via TL's own netinstall while using e.g. Arch's editors.

Last edited by nexus7 (2011-11-02 12:59:04)

rea · 2014-08-22 14:28:02

frabjous wrote:

The main disadvantage I can see for using the net installer from TUG/CTAN is that it may cause problems if you want to use pacman (or a AUR helper) to install TeX-related programs that are not part of TeXlive itself, such as a LaTeX editor (texmakerx or kile or lyx, etc.), or a conversion program, etc., which lists texlive as a dependency.
My way around this is to create a PKGBUILD for a dummy-package which "provides" equivalences of all the Arch TeXlive packages.

1. If I install 'texlive-dummy 0.0.2-2' from aur, and then install an editor, which tex live will be used by editor: dummy-texlive or the net-installer one?
2. Last update for the textlive-dummy v0.0.2: more than 1 year ago. Is it recommended to use this package as dependency-solver alongside the latest TeX Live installed via net installer?

Last edited by rea (2014-08-22 14:29:30)

Zergkolibri · 2014-08-23 12:17:03

rea wrote:

2. Last update for the textlive-dummy v0.0.2: more than 1 year ago. Is it recommended to use this package as dependency-solver alongside the latest TeX Live installed via net installer?

Since it is a dummy package, there isn't really anything to update (as long as the package names remain the same). A dummy package is only there for prevent applications installing a dependency (in this case, the TeX live packages).

rea wrote:

1. If I install 'texlive-dummy 0.0.2-2' from aur, and then install an editor, which tex live will be used by editor: dummy-texlive or the net-installer one?

As stated above, the dummy package prevents the Arch repository TeX live packages from being installed. The editor will look for the installation of TeX in the corresponding directory (e.g. /usr/local/texlive/2014/bin/x86_64-linux) anyway. So, simply put: It'll use your net-install.

Regards,
Zk

Last edited by Zergkolibri (2014-08-23 12:17:41)

brebs · 2014-08-23 17:11:35

frabjous wrote:

(On the other hand, if something happens to have been broken when the Arch packages were created, as siunitx recently was, then you're basically stuck with the broken version until the Arch repos are updated, even if a fixed version of siunitx is already available.)

That's really one-sided fear-mongering.

Edit the pkgbuild, recompile, reinstall. As every Arch user should know how to do.

Arch Linux

#1 2010-12-02 07:08:36

Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

#2 2010-12-02 19:49:22

Re: Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

#3 2011-11-02 11:58:14

Re: Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

#4 2011-11-02 12:08:37

Re: Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

#5 2011-11-02 12:11:37

Re: Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

#6 2014-08-22 14:28:02

Re: Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

#7 2014-08-23 12:17:03

Re: Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

#8 2014-08-23 17:11:35

Re: Pros and Cons of repo packages vs TeXLive net install

Board footer