On Mon, 2014-10-13 at 04:05 +0100, Ken Moffat wrote: > I'm getting ready to add the *real* from-source texlive build to > the book, using the texmf tarball to provide 3.6GB of scripts and > docs. But I've got a couple of questions: > > 1. Where do we encourage people to keep their source tarballs ? I'm > guessing /sources but I might be wrong. > > The reason for that question is that the install consists of > mkdir -pv /opt/texlive/2014 > cd /opt/texlive/2014 > tar -xf /path/to/texlive-20140525-texmf.tar.xz --strip-components=1 > > 2. When building texlive without a pre-existing tex installation, > the build has to be done twice: first time, a few parts (asy, xindy) > require various tex programs and cannot be built, also the install > is slightly different; second time (with the tex progs on $PATH) it > can all be built as we currently do. Of course die-hard TeX purists > might shun asy and xindy. For them, the smaller install may > suffice. > > I was originally going to put the multiple variants all in one page > [ not uncommon for BLFS, but hard to follow ], but I think it might > be clearer if I separated the first partial build to its own page, > somewhat like how LFS has two passes of binutils and gcc for /tools. > > By putting it on a separate page, I could then move the PATH setup > so that both the binary and the pass-1 versions lead to that. > > But, I sort of expect that changing it like this might upset > somebody. If so, please speak up now ;-) > > ĸen Hello Ken,
The splitting it like is done in LFS seems to be the best option to me. At least for consistencies sake as it does require two passes at the build. The clearer that it is made in the book, the better. Regards, Christopher. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
