Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

bender02 · 2008-07-30 23:11:02

Just updated to your -svn 2008 packages. Went smoothly, except the default updmap.cfg has no default maps in it (the 2007 version had some), so I had to do some 'updmap-sys --edit'-ing. Ah, and no /usr/local/share/texmf was created (but maybe that's my mistake), so I created it myself.

EDIT: forgot to say: great work! thanks!

Last edited by bender02 (2008-07-30 23:11:20)

Firmicus · 2008-07-31 07:53:06

bender02 wrote:

Just updated to your -svn 2008 packages. Went smoothly, except the default updmap.cfg has no default maps in it (the 2007 version had some), so I had to do some 'updmap-sys --edit'-ing. Ah, and no /usr/local/share/texmf was created (but maybe that's my mistake), so I created it myself.

That's my fault. I omitted to make post_update() behave as post_install() so right now the installation works only when installing from scratch

Pending update, I suggest to remove the old texlive packages from your system first before installing the new ones!

EDIT: I have added a more detailed warning in the wiki

EDIT: forgot to say: great work! thanks!

Thanks, that whole thing costs more work-hours that you can imagine

F

Last edited by Firmicus (2008-07-31 08:20:32)

Firmicus · 2008-07-31 08:07:51

@Stefan Hussmann: I have tested your file alexandra-maria-lara.tex and it compiles perfectly (except that there is no picture of the young actress ). So the problem is most certainly the one explained above in my reply to bender02. Could you try to uninstall all texlive-* packages and reinstall again? I bet everything will then work! I'll fix the install scriptlets so that post_update() runs too, and not only post_install().

Gruss, F

Stefan Husmann · 2008-07-31 19:57:04

True. Well, it is difficult to reproduce the error. I have no idea under which circumstances it occurs.

Stefan Husmann · 2008-08-04 13:47:32

I did some testing the last days and did not have any issues. Even the compilation of a middle long, about ten years old document with lots of math, bibtex entrys and two different xindy driven indexes went well. Great job, firmicus!

eyolf · 2008-08-10 14:27:46

First of all: great work! I really appreciate all the hours that go into this.
A couple of questions, of a more general character:

1. What's the rationale behind the tree structure in $HOME? Why is there a
non-dot directory ~/texmf along with ~/.texlive/texmf-var and
~/.texlive/texmf-config?
2. I'm still (after miktex, tetex and texlive2007) utterly confused about
what goes where. My initial installation was trial-and-error (or rather:
hit-and-miss), and for each upgrade, I've just moved the old files and
hoped for the best. Most things work, but once in a while there are things
that don't, and I'm always nervous when I run texhash or updmap... It would
have been quite helpful with a wiki entry detailing the specific paths used
by the Arch installation.
3. I'm on a single-user computer. Does that mean that I can do without all
the $HOME trees altogether and put all my modifications in the
/usr/local/share/texmf tree?

Stefan Husmann · 2008-08-10 15:28:40

eyolf wrote:

First of all: great work! I really appreciate all the hours that go into this.
A couple of questions, of a more general character:
1. What's the rationale behind the tree structure in $HOME? Why is there a
non-dot directory ~/texmf along with ~/.texlive/texmf-var and
~/.texlive/texmf-config?

I do not have ~/texmf. I think it is coming from a former installation. What is the modification date of that directory?

eyolf wrote:

2. I'm still (after miktex, tetex and texlive2007) utterly confused about
what goes where. My initial installation was trial-and-error (or rather:
hit-and-miss), and for each upgrade, I've just moved the old files and
hoped for the best. Most things work, but once in a while there are things
that don't, and I'm always nervous when I run texhash or updmap... It would
have been quite helpful with a wiki entry detailing the specific paths used
by the Arch installation.

What old files did you move? I do not understand.

eyolf wrote:

3. I'm on a single-user computer. Does that mean that I can do without all
the $HOME trees altogether and put all my modifications in the
/usr/local/share/texmf tree?

I suppose it will work but I would not recommend that. IMHO /usr/local/share/texmf should be used for TeX-stuff that does not belong to texlive but comes in form of a PKGBUILD. If you have a single user computer that is one more reason to use the trees in your $home directory.

eyolf · 2008-08-10 15:39:01

Stefan Husmann wrote:

I do not have ~/texmf. I think it is coming from a former installation. What is the modification date of that directory?

It's the new 2008 packages. From the wiki page:

* User-specific ones should be put under ~/.texlive/texmf-config.
* $TEXMFHOME is ~/texmf and $TEXMFVAR is ~/.texlive/texmf-var.

Stefan Husmann wrote:

What old files did you move? I do not understand.

Whatever user-specific files I had in whatever the $HOME tree was called in
the various latex versions. I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall
that the trees had different names in mik/tetex. I may be wrong.

bender02 · 2008-08-10 16:54:11

It's totally up to you where you put your own additions to the tex tree. The home tree is there since if you're *not* on a single-user computer, most likely you cannot modify anything under /usr. Anyways, the tex trees are just "merged" when *tex is run, so it does not make much difference for the actual tex binaries what is where (except there's a precedence if the trees contain different versions of the same file). It's just about how do you want to have the files organized.

By the way, in my opinion, the additions to texmf trees which are in AUR should go into /usr/share/texmf tree, and the /usr/local/share/texmf tree should/could be used by system admins for system-wide additions to tex trees that are not tracked as pacman packages. The ~/texmf tree should be used by individual users. Hence, in my opinion, for single-person machines, /usr/share/local/texmf and ~/texmf are equivalent.

eyolf · 2008-08-11 13:07:33

bender02 wrote:

It's totally up to you where you put your own additions to the tex tree. The home tree is there since if you're *not* on a single-user computer, most likely you cannot modify anything under /usr. Anyways, the tex trees are just "merged" when *tex is run, so it does not make much difference for the actual tex binaries what is where (except there's a precedence if the trees contain different versions of the same file). It's just about how do you want to have the files organized.
By the way, in my opinion, the additions to texmf trees which are in AUR should go into /usr/share/texmf tree, and the /usr/local/share/texmf tree should/could be used by system admins for system-wide additions to tex trees that are not tracked as pacman packages. The ~/texmf tree should be used by individual users. Hence, in my opinion, for single-person machines, /usr/share/local/texmf and ~/texmf are equivalent.

That was how I had understood it too. Between the lines, I read this as an explanation for the naming anomaly (~/.texlive/texmf-{var,config} vs ~/texmf (instead of (.texmf) -- that the names are of the same order. I still think that it would look more consistent with a dot-texmf, though.

Misery · 2008-08-11 20:31:06

There is a problem with "libkpathsea.a". Evince won't compile with it (dvi support).

/usr/bin/ld: /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.3.1/../../../../lib/libkpathsea.a(tex-file.o): relocation R_X86_64_32S against `kpse_format_info' can not be used when making a shared object; recompile with -fPIC
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.3.1/../../../../lib/libkpathsea.a: could not read symbols: Bad value
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status

Last edited by Misery (2008-08-11 20:31:53)

Stefan Husmann · 2008-08-12 19:53:13

Interesting. What exactly did you try? Why does evince try to link a kpathsearch library?

Last edited by Stefan Husmann (2008-08-12 19:59:05)

Misery · 2008-08-12 22:57:11

You only need to recompile evince PKGBUILD without changes and with normal makepkg.
Complete Build-Log: http://freefilehosting.net/download/3l34c

Makedepends in evince = tetex

pacman -Qi texlive-core-svn:
Version : 9589-1
URL : http://tug.org/texlive/
Provides : tetex texlive-core
Architecture : x86_64

You need it for DVI in evince:
checking for kpse_init_prog in -lkpathsea... no
configure: WARNING: "Dvi support is disabled since kpathsea library is not found. Check your TeX installation."

Last edited by Misery (2008-08-12 23:05:58)

Stefan Husmann · 2008-08-13 10:29:40

I think evince expects a shared library and texlive only comes with a static one. AFAIK Archlinux' texlive binary packages take the binaries from texlive and do not compile them specifically for Arch. That may have been different in tetex, which I never used in Arch.

I do not know if it is possible to compile evince linked to a statically library.

How are other dvi viewers dealing with that issue?

Stefan Husmann · 2008-08-13 17:37:07

When building my aur-package evince-without-nautilus I get

checking for kpse_init_prog in -lkpathsea... yes

Try to remove the configure option --disable-static from the abs-PKGBUILD.

zpxing · 2008-08-15 20:24:55

It looks that the context part is not supported?

$  texexec --lua test.tex
bash: texexec: command not found
$  context test.tex
bash: context: command not found

zpxing · 2008-08-16 11:04:58

I suggest to split texlive-core into plaintex, latex and context as what has been done by the ubuntu team. Personally, I prefer to use latest context minimal as context suite rather than texlive.

Misery · 2008-08-16 11:26:52

Stefan Husmann wrote:

When building my aur-package evince-without-nautilus I get
checking for kpse_init_prog in -lkpathsea... yes
Try to remove the configure option --disable-static from the abs-PKGBUILD.

That doesn't work here. Still the same problem....

Stefan Husmann · 2008-08-18 17:50:42

The new libncurses from testing will break xindy from texlive-bib-svn. Other binarys are not effected. So do not upgrade to libncurses if you wnat xindy (or rebuild xindy using my xindy-svn from AUR).

I just saw that xindy-svn does not work right now.

Last edited by Stefan Husmann (2008-08-18 22:10:10)

Firmicus · 2008-08-19 18:08:26

zpxing wrote:

I suggest to split texlive-core into plaintex, latex and context as what has been done by the ubuntu team. Personally, I prefer to use latest context minimal as context suite rather than texlive.

I am alone doing this. If I had a team, this could be possible, but right now my time is too limited for this. Sorry!

Firmicus

Stefan Husmann · 2008-08-19 21:15:38

zpxing wrote:

I suggest to split texlive-core into plaintex, latex and context as what has been done by the ubuntu team. Personally, I prefer to use latest context minimal as context suite rather than texlive.

Its not "the arch way". do not split packages unless they do it upstream.

attila · 2008-08-20 05:13:47

Stefan Husmann wrote:

zpxing wrote:
I suggest to split texlive-core into plaintex, latex and context as what has been done by the ubuntu team. Personally, I prefer to use latest context minimal as context suite rather than texlive.
Its not "the arch way". do not split packages unless they do it upstream.

It is not only a "this is our way" because it is a technical problem too. All distributions which use splitted packages can produce this with one make run from one source package. Makepkg can't do this and before you suggest to split packages you have to suggest that arch use the modified version of makepkg from kdemod (http://www.kdemod.ath.cx/bbs/viewtopic.php?id=592).

Last not least i must say that i like the "arch way" more because you install one package and don't have to think about that should i install the *-devel or the *-lib package too or not. For me the only advantage of this splitting from packages is from the good old time where we have had a 8MB hard disk and downloaded files with a 2400 bit/s modem.

Last edited by attila (2008-08-20 05:34:44)

zodmaner · 2008-08-29 19:53:02

Hi guy, I'm a new user of latex, have been using the old texlive packages in community repository for quite a while.

I've just upgrade to texlive 2008 today, and have already run into problems, when I try to install the new texlive packages (after I remove the old ones first, of course), I got the following errors:

 #  pacman -S texlive-bin-svn texlive-core-svn
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets (3): t1lib-5.1.2-1  texlive-bin-svn-9872-1  texlive-core-svn-2007.7194-2  

Total Download Size:    0.00 MB
Total Installed Size:   177.36 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n] y
checking package integrity...
(3/3) checking for file conflicts                   [###############################] 100%
(1/3) installing t1lib                              [###############################] 100%
(2/3) installing texlive-bin-svn                    [###############################] 100%
/tmp/alpm_8tMbG0/.INSTALL: line 2: /opt/texlive/texmf/web2c/updmap.cfg: No such file or directory
(3/3) installing texlive-core-svn                   [###############################] 100%
/tmp/alpm_E8eB3e/.INSTALL: line 52: /etc/profile.d/texlive.sh: No such file or directory

Not only that, but when I try to use latex, I got the following error:

 $  latex main.tex 
This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.1415926-1.40.9 (Web2C 7.5.7)
 %&-line parsing enabled.

kpathsea: Running mktexfmt latex.fmt
I can't find the format file `latex.fmt'!

I didn't have any of these problems with the old texlive packages. Did anyone have any idea what is wrong here? Like I said, I'm just start using latex and could use some suggestion on how to fix this problem. I'm using x86_64.

Last edited by zodmaner (2008-08-29 20:00:29)

Stefan Husmann · 2008-08-30 13:18:08

I think I had that also. Try

updmap-sys
fmtutil-sys --all

as root. If this does not help, overinstall the packages.

Last edited by Stefan Husmann (2008-08-30 13:18:37)

Firmicus · 2008-08-30 16:45:48

zodmaner wrote:

# pacman -S texlive-bin-svn texlive-core-svn
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...
Targets (3): t1lib-5.1.2-1 texlive-bin-svn-9872-1 texlive-core-svn-2007.7194-2

No wonder: you have installed community/texlive-core-svn together with texlive/texlive-bin-svn which are not compatible. I don't know why pacman preferred texlive-core-svn-2007.7194-2 over the higher version of the TL2008 package though. Try pacman -S texlive/texlive-core-svn instead.

F

Arch Linux

#26 2008-07-30 23:11:02

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#27 2008-07-31 07:53:06

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#28 2008-07-31 08:07:51

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#29 2008-07-31 19:57:04

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#30 2008-08-04 13:47:32

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#31 2008-08-10 14:27:46

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#32 2008-08-10 15:28:40

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#33 2008-08-10 15:39:01

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#34 2008-08-10 16:54:11

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#35 2008-08-11 13:07:33

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#36 2008-08-11 20:31:06

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#37 2008-08-12 19:53:13

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#38 2008-08-12 22:57:11

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#39 2008-08-13 10:29:40

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#40 2008-08-13 17:37:07

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#41 2008-08-15 20:24:55

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#42 2008-08-16 11:04:58

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#43 2008-08-16 11:26:52

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#44 2008-08-18 17:50:42

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#45 2008-08-19 18:08:26

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#46 2008-08-19 21:15:38

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#47 2008-08-20 05:13:47

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#48 2008-08-29 19:53:02

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#49 2008-08-30 13:18:08

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#50 2008-08-30 16:45:48

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

Board footer