TeX Live packages

[vEX] · 2007-09-30 08:37:39

He has such a file and it is sourced, it still produced the errors for some reason.

Firmicus · 2007-09-30 10:02:55

nesl247 wrote:

Firmicus: I do not use tex live, nor have I looked at your pkgbuilds in a while, but you could create /etc/profile.d/texlive.sh or something, and in it export PATH="${PATH}:/opt/texlive/bin". And then in each of your pkgbuilds, source /etc/profile.d/texlive.sh

As vEX just wrote, there is indeed such a file (which also exports the MANPATH), and it is sourced at the very beginning of the install script. Friday evening I changed the install script so that it contains absolute paths, and have reuploaded the texlive-core package. I hope this has propagated to the mirrors by now!

Aldarion · 2007-10-16 21:31:25

eyolf wrote:

I've finally installed the new texlive pacakages, and everything seems to be running smoothlyk - except for LyX, which can't find any of the latex classes and styles. I've tried compiling it (the 1.5.1 version) both with and without the --without-latex-config flag, but the outcome is the same: an error box saying:
The layout file requested by this document,
memoir.layout,
is not usable. This is probably because a LaTeX
class or style file required by it is not
available. See the Customization documentation
for more information.
LyX will not be able to produce output.
and similarly for other documents. What should I do?

Here's what worked for me:

LyX -> Tools -> Preferences -> PATH Prefix: /usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/opt/texlive/bin
LyX -> Tools -> Reconfigure
Restart

Don't forget to have the /opt/texlive/bin in your $PATH as root when doing

texconfig-sys rehash
updmap-sys --quiet --nohash

(code as mentioned previously)
HTH

Last edited by Aldarion (2007-10-16 22:32:29)

domanov · 2007-10-29 10:18:45

texlive 2007-1 doesn't include the last versions of beamer and pgf packages. I made two - very dirty - PKGBUILDs in order to replace the older packages owned by texlive-core with the newest versions. They are in aur as texlive-pgf and texlive-beamer.
They OVERWRITE the 'standard' texmf-dist trees... is there another (cleaner) way to include them without breaking texlive-core?

Firmicus, is it possible to replace the outdated packages coming with texlive? I know texlive is a huge pack and it is not really fair to ask the mantainer to track each and every single package, and you cannot provide a 'rolling' release of texlive, but... is there a clean way to update a single package (on a per-user basis) without for example changing the release of texlive-core?

Firmicus · 2007-10-29 10:33:54

domanov wrote:

texlive 2007-1 doesn't include the last versions of beamer and pgf packages. I made two - very dirty - PKGBUILDs in order to replace the older packages owned by texlive-core with the newest versions. They are in aur as texlive-pgf and texlive-beamer.
They OVERWRITE the 'standard' texmf-dist trees... is there another (cleaner) way to include them without breaking texlive-core?

I am well aware of that! I personally use my own svn version of the texlive packages: see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/TeX … e_packages
but this is certainly not the kind of answer you want to read!

Firmicus, is it possible to replace the outdated packages coming with texlive? I know texlive is a huge pack and it is not really fair to ask the mantainer to track each and every single package, and you cannot provide a 'rolling' release of texlive, but... is there a clean way to update a single package (on a per-user basis) without for example changing the release of texlive-core?

I'll see what I can do. If it looks feasible without much headache, expect texlive-2007-2 packages (including updated pgf and beamer) on community within the next few days

I have also been thinking whether I might perhaps provide my svn packages as well on community. But I'd need to talk to other TU's about it first (because this means that while the packages will work, their PKGBUILDs won't likely build after a short while).

Firmicus · 2007-10-29 14:37:23

domanov wrote:

I made two - very dirty - PKGBUILDs in order to replace the older packages owned by texlive-core with the newest versions. They are in aur as texlive-pgf and texlive-beamer.
They OVERWRITE the 'standard' texmf-dist trees... is there another (cleaner) way to include them without breaking texlive-core?

Above I forgot to mention that if you modify your "dirty" PKGBUILDs so that they install under /opt/texlive/texmf-local instead of .../texmf-dist , then everything should be fine. Since the texmf-local tree has higher priority, the stuff there will be loaded, and you won't need to overwrite anything from other packages in community, which is always a very bad idea (joking)

Cheers, Firmicus

attila · 2007-10-29 15:12:02

Firmicus wrote:

I have also been thinking whether I might perhaps provide my svn packages as well on community. But I'd need to talk to other TU's about it first (because this means that while the packages will work, their PKGBUILDs won't likely build after a short while).

I suggest to take the svn instead the stable version in community. Is there any reason which speaks against it? Or is here anyone who have anything against it? From my view nothing could be better as the version which is used by the maintainer.:)

Ramses de Norre · 2007-10-29 16:14:21

attila wrote:

Firmicus wrote:
I have also been thinking whether I might perhaps provide my svn packages as well on community. But I'd need to talk to other TU's about it first (because this means that while the packages will work, their PKGBUILDs won't likely build after a short while).
I suggest to take the svn instead the stable version in community. Is there any reason which speaks against it? Or is here anyone who have anything against it? From my view nothing could be better as the version which is used by the maintainer.:)

I have something against that if the svn version will introduce bugs and breakage, I kind of rely on these packages to work and if they'll be breaking a lot I will be forced to go back to tetex. I use latex pretty extensive to write papers.

attila · 2007-10-29 16:25:56

Ramses de Norre wrote:

I have something against that if the svn version will introduce bugs and breakage, I kind of rely on these packages to work and if they'll be breaking a lot I will be forced to go back to tetex. I use latex pretty extensive to write papers.

No question if there be bugs than i don't suggest it but this word "if" is what we should clear. I suggest this only because having packages which overwrites files of another package or which will be installed in texmf-local could no be the best solution. My personal dream is that there will be a texlive server where all the styles be the actual from ctan.

Firmicus · 2007-10-29 16:34:01

Ramses de Norre wrote:

I have something against that if the svn version will introduce bugs and breakage, I kind of rely on these packages to work and if they'll be breaking a lot I will be forced to go back to tetex. I use latex pretty extensive to write papers.

I was actually not thinking about replacing the "stable" packages, but supplying newest ones in addition to them.

Note that "svn" here only refers to the subversion repository of texlive. The svn packages produced as described on the wiki (see link above) are actually very stable, and should not introduce "bugs and breakage", rather the opposite. They contain the very same binaries, it is only the CTAN packages (latex macros, fonts, etc) that are updated to their latest stable versions.

Ramses de Norre · 2007-10-29 16:37:02

Firmicus wrote:

Ramses de Norre wrote:
I have something against that if the svn version will introduce bugs and breakage, I kind of rely on these packages to work and if they'll be breaking a lot I will be forced to go back to tetex. I use latex pretty extensive to write papers.
I was actually not thinking about replacing the "stable" packages, but supplying newest ones in addition to them.
Note that "svn" here only refers to the subversion repository of texlive. The svn packages produced as described on the wiki (see link above) are actually very stable, and should not introduce "bugs and breakage", rather the opposite. They contain the very same binaries, it is only the CTAN packages (latex macros, fonts, etc) that are updated to their latest stable versions.

So binaries (latex, tex, dvipdfm, bibtex, ...) don't change? Having both a mainstream and an svn version might be the best option

attila · 2007-10-29 20:52:25

Ramses de Norre wrote:

So binaries (latex, tex, dvipdfm, bibtex, ...) don't change? Having both a mainstream and an svn version might be the best option

You have more courage than mine to suggest having both.:) Because it will be more work i still say that i can live with having the svn versions in community instead of the active packages.

Ramses de Norre · 2007-10-29 22:11:25

attila wrote:

Ramses de Norre wrote:
So binaries (latex, tex, dvipdfm, bibtex, ...) don't change? Having both a mainstream and an svn version might be the best option
You have more courage than mine to suggest having both.:) Because it will be more work i still say that i can live with having the svn versions in community instead of the active packages.

Having only the svn packages would very soon drive people back to tetex, many people (including me) need latex working and can't live a day with non-functional packages. I'm not really into the packages structures though, so if there is no real risk it might be a good idea to have only the svn packages. If however breakage is to be expected, I would go with both or mainstream only.

This is only my opinion though

Firmicus · 2007-10-30 17:20:49

Ramses de Norre wrote:

Having only the svn packages would very soon drive people back to tetex, many people (including me) need latex working and can't live a day with non-functional packages. I'm not really into the packages structures though, so if there is no real risk it might be a good idea to have only the svn packages. If however breakage is to be expected, I would go with both or mainstream only.

Agreed. It is not my intention to get rid of the stable packages. And it would not be that much extra work because I "maintain" both versions anyway. It's just that the svn packages are currently only on my machine, and not in community

[vEX] · 2007-10-30 18:00:19

There are plenty of <packagename>-svn in the repositories already so I don't see why you couldn't add them.

Firmicus · 2007-11-06 16:25:01

texlive-core, texlive-core-doc, texlive-pictures and texlive-pictures-doc have just been updated to 2007.2

texlive-core now includes pgf because it is needed by beamer (pgf was previously in texlive-pictures).
(see http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8483)

beamer and pgf are updated to their most recent versions from sourceforge

enjoy!

PS: I am still considering the idea of providing the svn version in community as well... Not sure yet.

attila · 2007-11-06 17:36:48

Firmicus wrote:

texlive-core, texlive-core-doc, texlive-pictures and texlive-pictures-doc have just been updated to 2007.2

Thanks for your work

Firmicus wrote:

texlive-core now includes pgf because it is needed by beamer (pgf was previously in texlive-pictures).

Okay, now i understand why i haven't this error because i make use of the group feature and do a 'pacman -S texlive-most'. Perhaps you should write this in bold text in the wiki.:)

Firmicus wrote:

PS: I am still considering the idea of providing the svn version in community as well... Not sure yet.

I still suggest that you merge the packages from community with the svn versions because as you said before the only difference be the newer files from ctan. The ctan server is THE file server for tex files and if there is a bad update of one of this files than i'm sure it will get fixed very fast. If not, than you can forget this file. So i don't see the danger of it but and it will be easier for you to handle this BIG package named texlive-*. Now it is on to you others to help Firmicus to find the solution.:)

turtle · 2007-11-07 00:22:03

Firmicus wrote:

texlive-core, texlive-core-doc, texlive-pictures and texlive-pictures-doc have just been updated to 2007.2

After upgrading there is an error when I try to compile my beamer presentation:

! I can't find file `pgfcoremath.code.tex'.
l.14 \input pgfcoremath.code.tex

In fact, there is no file

pgfmathcore.code.tex

in the directory

/opt/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/pgf/basiclayer/

The file was present in the previous version of the package texlive-core.

Last edited by turtle (2007-11-07 00:23:05)

Firmicus · 2007-11-07 08:54:13

turtle wrote:

After upgrading there is an error when I try to compile my beamer presentation:
! I can't find file `pgfcoremath.code.tex'.
l.14 \input pgfcoremath.code.tex
The file was present in the previous version of the package texlive-core.

This file is not present in version 1.18 of pgf and beamer should not be looking for it. The math stuff is now in the "math" subdir. Could it be that you have a conflicting version in texmf-local?

Perhaps you could post a minimal example that illustrates your problem. Post also your log file or if it's too long send it to me (firmicus ατ gmx δοτ net).

Last edited by Firmicus (2007-11-07 08:54:59)

turtle · 2007-11-07 16:58:48

Firmicus wrote:

turtle wrote:
After upgrading there is an error when I try to compile my beamer presentation
Could it be that you have a conflicting version in texmf-local?

May be it was the reason for the error. I have removed all the texlive-packages:

pacman -Rc texlive-most
pacman -Rc texlive-most-doc

and then I have installed them again:

pacman -S texlive-most
pacman -S texlive-most-doc

Now everything works like a charm. Thank you for your suggestion.
And many thanks for the great work you did on packaging texlive.

Firmicus · 2007-11-10 08:26:58

This is strange. Another user encountered this (see http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8483#comment20778) ... No idea what is causing this. Please report on flyspray if you have further hints.

abhidg · 2007-11-17 14:15:50

Here's another strange problem I'm facing... All of a sudden, pdflatex is generating Type 3 (bitmap) versions of the Computer Modern fonts instead of Type1 (earlier it didn't do so); this is on my 32 bit laptop, on my 64 bit desktop, it is generating the correct type1 fonts. What could be causing this? I've tried reinstallive texlive-core and texlive-latexextra, but to no avail.

If I try using some other font (Times or Helvetica) then it correctly generates type1 fonts; the problem seems only to be with Computer Modern.

abhidg · 2007-11-17 15:17:10

It's solved by deleting my $HOME/.texmf* folders; maybe they had some errant configuration.

jano · 2007-11-19 08:37:02

HI,

trying to install texlive-most yields errors such as:
texlive-bin: /opt/texlive/texmf/xdvi/xdvi.cfg existiert im Dateisystem (already exists)

If you install texlive-most without texlive-bin everything works well.
Is this related to the warning
./test.tex:0: pdflatex (file /opt/texlive/texmf-var/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map): fontmap entry for `pcrb8y' already exists, duplicates ignored ?

best,
jano

Firmicus · 2007-11-19 21:48:52

jano wrote:

HI,
trying to install texlive-most yields errors such as:
texlive-bin: /opt/texlive/texmf/xdvi/xdvi.cfg existiert im Dateisystem (already exists)
If you install texlive-most without texlive-bin everything works well.
Is this related to the warning
./test.tex:0: pdflatex (file /opt/texlive/texmf-var/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map): fontmap entry for `pcrb8y' already exists, duplicates ignored ?
best,
jano

My mistake: texlive-bin should not have been put in the group texlive-most. It is a common dependency of the next version of texlive-core and of the newly-added package texlive-core-svn (which I have not yet really publicized ;-)
thanks. I have just uploaded texlive-bin-2007.2-2 to [community]. The problem should be solved

Arch Linux

#76 2007-09-30 08:37:39

Re: TeX Live packages

#77 2007-09-30 10:02:55

Re: TeX Live packages

#78 2007-10-16 21:31:25

Re: TeX Live packages

#79 2007-10-29 10:18:45

Re: TeX Live packages

#80 2007-10-29 10:33:54

Re: TeX Live packages

#81 2007-10-29 14:37:23

Re: TeX Live packages

#82 2007-10-29 15:12:02

Re: TeX Live packages

#83 2007-10-29 16:14:21

Re: TeX Live packages

#84 2007-10-29 16:25:56

Re: TeX Live packages

#85 2007-10-29 16:34:01

Re: TeX Live packages

#86 2007-10-29 16:37:02

Re: TeX Live packages

#87 2007-10-29 20:52:25

Re: TeX Live packages

#88 2007-10-29 22:11:25

Re: TeX Live packages

#89 2007-10-30 17:20:49

Re: TeX Live packages

#90 2007-10-30 18:00:19

Re: TeX Live packages

#91 2007-11-06 16:25:01

Re: TeX Live packages

#92 2007-11-06 17:36:48

Re: TeX Live packages

#93 2007-11-07 00:22:03

Re: TeX Live packages

#94 2007-11-07 08:54:13

Re: TeX Live packages

#95 2007-11-07 16:58:48

Re: TeX Live packages

#96 2007-11-10 08:26:58

Re: TeX Live packages

#97 2007-11-17 14:15:50

Re: TeX Live packages

#98 2007-11-17 15:17:10

Re: TeX Live packages

#99 2007-11-19 08:37:02

Re: TeX Live packages

#100 2007-11-19 21:48:52

Re: TeX Live packages

Board footer