Jan de Groot wrote: > Somehow the texlive-bin PKGBUILD doesn't provide the same binary package > that is in the repository. I just committed a gnome-unstable directory > with 3 patches that fixes build against poppler 0.12, but building it > with makechrootpkg results in a lot of missing binaries. Also, I > couldn't build texlive-bin without adding some force commands to ln and > rm.
Thanks for reporting this Jan. I'll happily loot into this. But can you send me some more details first? Here are the facts from my side: texlive-bin 2009.4-2 was indeed created with "makepkg -R" on the basis of the previous build (pkgrel=1) because I only needed to add two missing symlinks for texlua and texluac (see FS#16486) and did not feel like rebuilding the whole goddam thing for something as simple as that (ca. 30 minutes of compilation at full processor last costs a lot of electricity you know ;) and my fans get real noisy too!)... So yes, I did fix that by hand: I unpacked the previously built packages under $pkgdir, created the symlinks, added the corresponding missing lines in the PKGBUILD, and then repackaged. I can assure you that the previous build (2009.4-1) was generated from the PKGBUILD then in trunk. But it was NOT built with makechrootpkg. Sometimes (rarely) makechroot is not a good idea. I know that building subversion and gvim with makechroot can yield incorrect packages. In the particular case of texlive-bin, which is very complex, I need to be in full control and a chroot environment does not provide this condition. But I am open to your criticism if you think this is not a good approach ;) Yet I am nevertheless surprised that texlive-bin does not build well with makechrootpkg. I certainly does in a normal environment. F
