On Thu, Jun 08 2006, David Kastrup wrote: > Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> In addition to the changes I've installed yesterday, I'd like to >> propose to add a directory argument for texhash/mktexlsr, see below. > > Not sure that all relevant teTeX versions grok that. We are talking > teTeX 2.0 here, if not earlier.
I checked this on SuSE 9.2 which has tetex-2.0.2. >> AFAICS, mktexlsr is the canonical name now, isn't it? At least >> (info "(kpathsea)Filename database generation") mentions mktexlsr. The node in teTeX 1.0 / Debian 3.0 also mentions _only_ mktexlsr, see below. > Again, "now" is not the same as "the most outdated TeX distribution in > the most outdated OS distribution that has not reached end-of-support > by now". ,----[ http://www.debian.org/News/2006/20060601 ] | June 1st, 2006 | | Security Support for Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 to be terminated on June 30th `---- ,---- | $ cat /etc/debian_version | 3.0 | $ /usr/bin/mktexlsr --help | Usage: mktexlsr [DIRS ...] | | Rebuild all necessary ls-R filename databases completely. If one or | more arguments DIRS are given, these are used as texmf directories to | build ls-R for. Else all directories in the search path for ls-R files | ($TEXMFDBS) are used. | $ ls -l /usr/bin/mktexlsr /usr/bin/texhash | -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4640 Dec 16 04:49 /usr/bin/mktexlsr | lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Jan 30 19:35 /usr/bin/texhash -> mktexlsr | $ apt-cache show tetex-bin | Package: tetex-bin | [...] | Version: 1.0.7+20011202-7.7 `---- SuSE 9.0 already had teTeX 2.0 and is discontinued since December 2005: ,----[ http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.suse.security.announce/260 ] | Subject: Discontinued SUSE Linux Distribution: 9.0 | Newsgroups: gmane.linux.suse.security.announce | Date: 2005-11-14 12:32:23 GMT | | Dear suse-security-announce subscribers and SUSE LINUX users, | | SUSE Security announces that SUSE Linux 9.0 (Personal and Professional | edition) will be discontinued soon. Having provided security-relevant | fixes for more than two years, vulnerabilities found in SUSE Linux 9.0 | after December 15 2005 will not be fixed any more for this product. `---- Fedora Core 2 has tetex-2. If I understand http://lwn.net/Alerts/183673/ correctly, FC1 also already has tetex-2. I couldn't find information about still supported versions for Fedora. >> Does it make sense to specify the path "/usr/bin/"? > > Yes. There are too many alternative TeX systems around that might be > installed on a machine. We don't want to update the wrong TeX system > when the package is installed. The update should be the system tree > TeX system. Okay, I withdraw this part of the suggestion. > So I am not in favor of both suggestions out of the box. I might > change my opinion on the first one if you do all the research that > makes sure that mktexlsr (as well as the directory option) is > available on _all_ systems still actively in support. Which systems (teTeX versions?) do _we_ try to support actively? In general (for AUCTeX) and for the RPMs? Independent of the current issue, we might want to add this somewhere in our documentation. > I'd be too lazy to do that myself, as I don't see much benefit in > it. I installed our preview-tetex RPM on several machines today which share /usr/local (mounted read-only on the NFS clients). On each client the %post directive complained about not being able to update /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R. I'm not sure if it's good practice to touch /usr/local at all (cf. FHS). Bye, Reiner. -- ,,, (o o) ---ooO-(_)-Ooo--- | PGP key available | http://rsteib.home.pages.de/ _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
