On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 09:10:33PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > You are probably right. I would count the number of LFS users who need to > use bibtex from source in the low single digits.
That many ? ;-) Actually, this is biblatex, not the old bibtex, but neither is a common requirement for LFS users - if I needed to use it for real, I suspect I would use the binary, and use tlmgr to update it (and in that situation I probably wouldn't have time to play with LFS). And _I'm_ only trying to use it because somebody raised a ticket pointing out that our "from source" build did not build everything. Nevertheless, we are ahead of fedora (they have a "contributed" binary, and a long-raised ticket because some of their biblatex stuff needs biber, but so far it hasn't made it into their releases because there were too many perl dependencies - looks as if that might change soon, but don't hold your breath), and we might be ahead of gentoo - they build 1.9 without any fixes and without running the testsuite (which for me, in svn earlier this year, showed the same failure as when I tried to run unfixed 1.9 - but perhaps those failures too are from using a too-new perl). ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-book FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
