Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

Firmicus · 2008-09-08 18:07:26

A preliminary announcement for you guys:

I have finalized the packaging of TeXLive 2008 and the pkgs should go to [extra] very soon!

All texlive-* packages will then be removed from [community] as well as my temporary texlive-svn repo.

I'll write a more detailed news item for the website in due time.

F

attila · 2008-09-08 20:24:37

Firmicus wrote:

I have finalized the packaging of TeXLive 2008 and the pkgs should go to [extra] very soon!

Nice to hear that they go to extra ... this is an advancement.

foutrelis · 2008-09-08 22:46:38

Firmicus wrote:

I have finalized the packaging of TeXLive 2008 and the pkgs should go to [extra] very soon!

Your hard work is greatly appreciated mate!

Keep it up.

Stefan Husmann · 2008-09-09 11:29:55

... especially for this release with many upstrem changes.

kazuo · 2008-09-09 15:22:56

Uhh, when I try to run tlmgr I got a error:

tlmgr 
Can't locate TeXLive/TLPOBJ.pm in @INC (@INC contains: //tlpkg /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0 /usr/share/perl5/site_perl/5.10.0 /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/share/perl5/vendor_perl /usr/lib/perl5/core_perl /usr/share/perl5/core_perl /usr/lib/perl5/current /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/current/x86_64-linux-thread-multi /usr/lib/perl5/site_perl/current .) at /usr/bin/tlmgr line 26.
BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/bin/tlmgr line 26.

This is a know issue? or I missed something?

Firmicus · 2008-09-09 18:37:00

kazuo wrote:

tlmgr 
Can't locate TeXLive/TLPOBJ.pm in @INC [...]
This is a know issue? or I missed something?

True. At first I thought tlmgr was not needed, as the package management is done by me ;-) But actually tlmgr can َalso be used as a replacement for texconfig, so it makes some sense to include it. I'll make sure the required Perl modules are included in the final package then. Thanks.

EDIT: Well, actually, thinking about it more, I changed my mind: tlmgr is specifically designed to manage an upstream TeXLive installation, not one from a distro. And messing around with it in Arch would only cause confusion and risks breaking things badly. I think will actually remove it from texlive-bin! texconfig and/or manual editing of config files is much better. And it is the Arch Way, no?

Last edited by Firmicus (2008-09-09 20:36:11)

Stefan Husmann · 2008-09-10 07:18:28

Maybe tlmgr is an option for package maintainers, and we can implement a mechanism like the arch haskell people do with cabal packages. I do not know exactly how tlmgr works, though.

Firmicus · 2008-09-10 08:07:08

Stefan Husmann wrote:

Maybe tlmgr is an option for package maintainers, and we can implement a mechanism like the arch haskell people do with cabal packages. I do not know exactly how tlmgr works, though.

Oh, but this is exactly what I do now! I have written my own little perl script which uses the TeXLive::TLPDB module (the API for tlmgr) to automatically update all my PKGBUILDs using the information in the TL database located at http://mirror.ctan.org/systems/texlive/ … tlpdb.lzma (which is updated continuously). I plan to update the non-binary packages on a regular basis (perhaps once a month for the important packages). This explains why I will remove the texlive-*-svn packages from [community]. Moreover, rsync is no longer needed to build my packages, as they are now exclusively based on the *.tar.lzma files located under http://mirror.ctan.org/systems/texlive/ … 8/archive/, which are also continuously updated. The sources for my PKGBUILDs will be located on the archlinux.org server, however (for reasons that would be too long to explain here).

F

Stefan Husmann · 2008-09-10 08:28:56

Great! Big improvement!

Stefan Husmann · 2008-09-11 20:50:48

I just came back from a local TeX user Meeting in my home town Hannover. One of the issues we discussed there was that Markus Kohm, the author of komascript, a very well known replacement of the LaTeX standard classes, had a discussion with the maintainers of the miktex distribution for Windows. He was very angry (well he said "not amused") about not packaging the whole fileset he wants to have distributed, including pdfs of the docs in german and english.

So I want you to please reconsider the decision of not having documentation within texlive. Otherwise komascript has to be taken away, and that would be a pity.

See here

EDIT: --Fixed link -Snowman

attila · 2008-09-12 05:14:11

@Stefan Your link is broken so it is hard to look at the thread.

If we want to be sure we can contact Markus, explain him that archlinux never have the same *-doc packages as other distributions and ask him if he can live with this. But i see this more as a problem of the base (texlive sources).

Snowman · 2008-09-12 05:39:22

attila wrote:

@Stefan Your link is broken so it is hard to look at the thread.

I went ahead and fixed the link.

attila · 2008-09-12 08:43:48

Snowman wrote:

I went ahead and fixed the link.

Thanks, now i see the "problem".

There is an easy solution to prevent that Markus be "not amused". We can download the zip [1] and extract it to the texmf tree in the PKGBUILD (huhu Firmicus, you have to say if this is a good idea or not ). This is not nice because it has no release number in the file name but from my first view the only way to respect the wish of the author. But it is better than some other LaTeX style packages because the author offers a zip with all inside of it.

[1] http://www.ctan.org/get/install/macros/ … pt.tds.zip

Stefan Husmann · 2008-09-12 09:53:38

Sorry for the wrong link. Wht I want to point out is that other package maintainer may be of the same opinion than Markus Kohm, so the problem may be not only related to komascript. Therefore the decision should be reconsidered.

I do not know i this leads to much more work, but if so, I would like to help.

attila · 2008-09-12 11:40:26

Stefan Husmann wrote:

Wht I want to point out is that other package maintainer may be of the same opinion than Markus Kohm, so the problem may be not only related to komascript.

From my view the decision for yes or no is easy: If the author of the TeX package offers an archiv with the complete directory structure as Markus Kohm AND say in his README that it has to be distributed complete than yes. In any other case no. This is my private opinion about it and still again this is only relevant if the base (texlive sources) cause the problem.

Firmicus · 2008-09-12 12:59:59

Stefan is basically right.

However: teTeX never distributed the sources and documentation and nobody ever complained, but I understand that this is an issue, being myself a contributor on CTAN (my stuff is LPPL-licensed). My idea now would actually be to offer the WHOLE TL documentation as one (huge) separate package. Is that crazy? Note that the documentation+sources is packaged separately by TeXLive. Do you think that is feasible? Otherwise I would have to go the same route as with the packages that were in community, i,e. for each package texlive-foo, to offer texlive-foo-doc.

Firmicus · 2008-09-12 16:29:20

I just re-read the LPPL and the TeXLive licensing conditions. My understanding of §6.d of the section "CONDITIONS ON DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION" of the LPPL is that a distribution such as ours must either distribute the sources/documentation with the package OR provide "information that is sufficient to obtain a complete, unmodified copy of the Work."
Now since our post-install scriptlet explicitly refers the user to the TeXLive wiki page, which contains an explicit link to http://tug.org/texlive/Contents/live/doc.html, I'd hope that this would comply to the requirement. But I'm not a lawyer of course ...

@Stefan: I have just prepared PKGBUILDs for all texlive-*-doc packages. Would you be interested to maintain them in [community], now that you are a TU?

F

EDIT: I'll now move on and release the TL packages in extra. I'll then post an announcement message on the Arch homepage and will rewrite the wiki.

Last edited by Firmicus (2008-09-12 16:33:24)

Stefan Husmann · 2008-09-12 20:39:28

concerning docs: yes

Last edited by Stefan Husmann (2008-09-12 20:53:29)

Firmicus · 2008-09-12 21:29:15

Stefan Husmann wrote:

concerning docs: yes

Great! I'll contact you by email this week-end.
Tschüß, F.

pnorcks · 2008-09-12 23:19:39

Why are there only 8 packages in [extra] for i686 and 13 for x86_64? I can't upgrade yet because texlive-bin/core are not there.

Last edited by pnorcks (2008-09-12 23:19:59)

skottish · 2008-09-13 02:23:54

Awesome work Firmicus. Thank you.

pnorcks wrote:

Why are there only 8 packages in [extra] for i686 and 13 for x86_64? I can't upgrade yet because texlive-bin/core are not there.

Your mirror(s) haven't fully synced. There's more than 13 files total. This is from easynews and may not be fully synced:

extra/texlive-bibtexextra 2008.9737-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-bin 2008-1
extra/texlive-core 2008.10429-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-fontsextra 2008.10427-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-formatsextra 2008.7340-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-games 2008.9999-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-genericextra 2008.9477-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-htmlxml 2008.10385-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-humanities 2008.10432-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-langcjk 2008.10331-1 (texlive-lang)
extra/texlive-langcyrillic 2008.9742-1 (texlive-lang)
extra/texlive-langextra 2008.9736-1 (texlive-lang)
extra/texlive-langgreek 2008.9915-1 (texlive-lang)
extra/texlive-latex3 2008.10126-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-latexextra 2008.10434-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-music 2008.7340-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-pictures 2008.10353-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-plainextra 2008.9605-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-pstricks 2008.10319-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-publishers 2008.10433-1 (texlive-most)
extra/texlive-science 2008.10435-1 (texlive-most)

Last edited by skottish (2008-09-13 02:24:28)

pnorcks · 2008-09-13 03:22:58

skottish wrote:

Your mirror(s) haven't fully synced. There's more than 13 files total.

You were right, skottish.

Thank you Firmicus! Works great!

Snowman · 2008-09-14 21:39:21

I've noticed that in texlive-bin, xdvi is built with the xaw toolkit instead of the motif one like in the tetex package. The motif gui is nicer and has a more modern look and feel. It also adds a preferences menu option to further customize the gui. If you want to implement this change, replace --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=xaw by --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=motif and a lesstif make/optdepends.

Firmicus · 2008-09-15 05:33:14

Snowman wrote:

I've noticed that in texlive-bin, xdvi is built with the xaw toolkit instead of the motif one like in the tetex package. The motif gui is nicer and has a more modern look and feel. It also adds a preferences menu option to further customize the gui. If you want to implement this change, replace --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=xaw by --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=motif and a lesstif make/optdepends.

OK, I can do that. I just used the default here. BTW I never use xdvi nowadays since I always compile to pdf (with pdftex, xetex and now luatex). But I'll add this to my TODO list.

kendosperling · 2008-09-15 10:14:03

I just tried to update from tetex to texlive but got some errors:

This is a summary of all `failed' messages and warnings:
`pdftex -ini -jobname=latex -progname=latex -translate-file=cp227.tcx *latex.ini' failed
`pdftex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex -translate-file=cp227.tcx *pdflatex.ini' failed
`pdftex -ini -jobname=mllatex -progname=mllatex -translate-file=cp227.tcx -mltex mllatex.ini' failed
`pdftex -ini -jobname=etex -progname=etex -translate-file=cp227.tcx *etex.ini' failed
`pdftex -ini -jobname=pdfetex -progname=pdfetex -translate-file=cp227.tcx *pdfetex.ini' failed
`pdftex -ini -jobname=pdftex -progname=pdftex -translate-file=cp227.tcx *pdfetex.ini' failed

may you know where's the problem

Arch Linux

#51 2008-09-08 18:07:26

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#52 2008-09-08 20:24:37

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#53 2008-09-08 22:46:38

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#54 2008-09-09 11:29:55

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#55 2008-09-09 15:22:56

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#56 2008-09-09 18:37:00

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#57 2008-09-10 07:18:28

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#58 2008-09-10 08:07:08

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#59 2008-09-10 08:28:56

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#60 2008-09-11 20:50:48

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#61 2008-09-12 05:14:11

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#62 2008-09-12 05:39:22

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#63 2008-09-12 08:43:48

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#64 2008-09-12 09:53:38

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#65 2008-09-12 11:40:26

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#66 2008-09-12 12:59:59

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#67 2008-09-12 16:29:20

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#68 2008-09-12 20:39:28

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#69 2008-09-12 21:29:15

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#70 2008-09-12 23:19:39

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#71 2008-09-13 02:23:54

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#72 2008-09-13 03:22:58

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#73 2008-09-14 21:39:21

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#74 2008-09-15 05:33:14

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

#75 2008-09-15 10:14:03

Re: Testers needed for new TeXLive packages!

Board footer