Re: [packages/texlive/TEXLIVE_20080816] fix "sh: syntax error: unexpected '('" during file processing
On 30.01.2023 14:26, atler wrote: -%define_noautoreq 'perl(path_tre)' +%define_noautoreq perl\\(path_tre\\) just use _noautoreq_perl ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
texlive errors [builder-th-i...@pld-linux.org: TEST build ERRORS: nickle.spec OK: ibus-gjs.spec]
Any hints what's wrong? Google answers are very unclear. It failed on th-i[46]86, built successfully on th-x86_64 and my i686 machine. - Forwarded message from PLD th-i486 builder builder-th-i...@pld-linux.org - [...] docbook2pdf nickle-tutorial.sgml Using catalogs: /etc/sgml/catalog Using stylesheet: /usr/share/sgml/docbook/utils-0.6.14/docbook-utils.dsl#print Working on: /tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD/nickle-2.77/doc/tutorial/nickle-tutorial.sgml This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.1415926-1.40.9 (Web2C 7.5.7) %-line parsing enabled. entering extended mode (/tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD/nickle-2.77/doc/tutorial/nic kle-tutorial.tex JadeTeX 2002/01/25: 3.12 (/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/psnfss/t1ptm.fd) Elements will be labelled Jade begin document sequence at 21 No file nickle-tutorial.aux. (/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/tipa/t3ptm.fd) No file T2Acmr.fd. ! LaTeX Error: This NFSS system isn't set up properly. See the LaTeX manual or LaTeX Companion for explanation. Type H return for immediate help. ... [...] Transcript written on nickle-tutorial.log. make[3]: *** [nickle-tutorial.pdf] Error 9 make[3]: Leaving directory `/tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD/nickle-2.77/doc/tutorial' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD/nickle-2.77/doc' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD/nickle-2.77' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD/tmp/rpm-tmp.66362 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD/tmp/rpm-tmp.66362 (%build) ended at: Sat Nov 10 12:10:01 2012, done in 0:00:09.842846 error: No files produced. + chmod -R u+rwX /tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD + rm -rf /tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/tmp /tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400/BUILD + rm -rf /tmp/B.986ad46e-05bc-4d8a-984a-56321f8fa400 Begin-PLD-Builder-Info Build-Time: user:8.11s sys:1.22s real:14.58s (faults io:35 non-io:786808) End-PLD-Builder-Info - End forwarded message - -- Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive 2012
On 12.09.2012 08:23, Zsolt Udvari wrote: The reason of splitting: texlive is arch-dependent, texlive-texmf is arch-independent. The versions are different. can this reason be marked void with rpm5? in other words, does rpm5 support noarch subpackages? just mark them, nothing more complex in it, it's fault of packager putting invliad content here, we have ftp automation to alert on some mistakes. jbj: i know you're reading :) -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive 2012
On 12.09.2012 08:23, Zsolt Udvari wrote: Some time ago, when I've split texlive.spec to texlive.spec and texlive-texmf.spec many things was adhoc-style:) So first need a big-big cleaning and I think after this the maintain will be simple. With one big spec: the build will be hard, see above, as you wrote: you'll build the texlive.spec's texlive-bin and after you'll install these packages and build texlive.spec's texlive-texmf? why is building hard? you do first rpmbuild, and alter you handle only %files thus: $ ./repackage.sh textlive.spec will invoke %install and produce .rpm files and after that if you do not need to modify $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, you can just invoke: $ ./repackage.sh textlive.spec -bb this will not invoke %install again, just will produce .rpm packages (repackage.sh is just frontend to rpmbuild --short-circuit) -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive 2012
Does it make sense to have texlive.spec and texlive-texmf.spec? I understand that the latter deals with much larger source file, but then we have to deal with problems like the following - amstex.1 manual is provided by texlive.spec - amstex format and other files are provided by texlive-texml.spec Also, due to two spec files we create some artificial packages, i.e. - texlive-texmf.spec: texlive-latex-bibtex-data - texlive.spec: texlive-latex-bibtex - it requires the above, but you have to build texlive.spec first I would suggest to merge those two specs again. Bit more painful to build, but much simpler to maintain. Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive 2012
The reason of splitting: texlive is arch-dependent, texlive-texmf is arch-independent. The versions are different. - texlive-texmf.spec: texlive-latex-bibtex-data - texlive.spec: texlive-latex-bibtex - it requires the above, but you have to build texlive.spec first You can build texlive.spec with older texlive-latex-bibtex-data. This is the reason why need bootstrap. So you'll build texlive2012 with texlive-texmf2008, after you'll build texlive-texmf2012 with texlive2012, and rebuild texlive2012 with texlive-texmf2012. I would suggest to merge those two specs again. Bit more painful to build, but much simpler to maintain. I think the maintain isn't harder with two little(?) specs. I think it would be nice to create a policy: which type of files belongs to texlive and which belongs to texlive-texmf and apply this policy. Some time ago, when I've split texlive.spec to texlive.spec and texlive-texmf.spec many things was adhoc-style :) So first need a big-big cleaning and I think after this the maintain will be simple. With one big spec: the build will be hard, see above, as you wrote: you'll build the texlive.spec's texlive-bin and after you'll install these packages and build texlive.spec's texlive-texmf? Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive 2012
Hi all! What is the status of TexLive 2011 in the repo at the moment? Does it work at least a bit? Yes, it works but don't packaged all styles. On my machine I'm using this version. TexLive 2012 is out - anything against to skip 2011 and move to 2012 directly? Yes :) Now I don't have time so I can't do big work, but feel you free to modify this. Zsolt (uzsolt) ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive-texmf bootstrap
foiltex was added after adding of bootstrap. Foiltex needed by a package as I remember. Maybe the bootstrap option isn't important. When I began texlive.spec on PLD was only tetex. When build texlive it needs some installed files (BuildRequires :)). First official build of texlive used files from tetex. We've install texlive (and remove tetex) and rebuild (without bootstrap). So the rel2 used files from texlive (not tetex). I think it's unnecessary. Zsolt 2012/8/17 Artur Wroblewski wrob...@pld-linux.org Hi, What's the point of bootstrap in texlive-texmf? foiltex build? IMHO, foiltex should go to separate spec. This way we could simplify texlive-texmf.spec. Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
texlive-texmf bootstrap
Hi, What's the point of bootstrap in texlive-texmf? foiltex build? IMHO, foiltex should go to separate spec. This way we could simplify texlive-texmf.spec. Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
texlive 2012
Hi, What is the status of TexLive 2011 in the repo at the moment? Does it work at least a bit? TexLive 2012 is out - anything against to skip 2011 and move to 2012 directly? Regards, w ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive 2012
On Wednesday 15 of August 2012, Artur Wroblewski wrote: Hi, What is the status of TexLive 2011 in the repo at the moment? Does it work at least a bit? It partially works. I wasn't able to build other packages documentation using texlive 2011 for example (we were once close to having texlive 2011 in Th but had to revert). -- Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz, arekm / maven.pl ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive 2012
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Artur Wroblewski wrote: Hi, What is the status of TexLive 2011 in the repo at the moment? Does it work at least a bit? TexLive 2012 is out - anything against to skip 2011 and move to 2012 directly? Go ahead, there's no point in sticking to older version. Just don't send it to ftp before september :) -- Jan Rękorajski | PLD/Linux SysAdm | http://www.pld-linux.org/ bagginsatmimuw.edu.pl bagginsatpld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
texlive - files duplicate
poldek:/all-avail desc -ll texlive-fonts-marvosym-20080816-19.i686
[...]
-rw-r--r-- 1440
/usr/share/texmf-dist/source/fonts/eurofont/marvosym/tfmfiles/yandy/fmvr8x.tfm
-rw-r--r-- 1576
/usr/share/texmf-dist/source/fonts/eurofont/marvosym/tfmfiles/yandy/fmvri8x.tfm
drwxr-xr-x 28672/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/
drwxr-xr-x39/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/marvosym/
-rw-r--r-- 6578/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/marvosym/marvosym.sty
-rw-r--r-- 111/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/marvosym/umvs.fd
poldek:/all-avail desc -ll texlive-latex-marvosym-20080816-19.i686
Package:texlive-latex-marvosym-20080816-19.i686
mode rozmiarnazwa
drwxr-xr-x39/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/marvosym/
-rw-r--r-- 6578/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/marvosym/marvosym.sty
-rw-r--r-- 111/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/marvosym/umvs.fd
poldek:/all-avail desc -r texlive-latex-marvosym-20080816-19.i686
Package:texlive-latex-marvosym-20080816-19.i686
Requires: /bin/sh, /bin/sh, /usr/bin/texhash, texlive-fonts-marvosym =
1:20080816-19,
^^
texlive-latex = 1:20080816-19
Requires(rpm): rpmlib(PayloadIsLzma) = 4.4.6-1
Requires(dir): /usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex
...so I suppose %{_datadir}/texmf-dist/tex/latex should be removed from
texlive-fonts-marvosym
--
Jakub Boguszhttp://qboosh.pl/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive - files duplicate
...so I suppose %{_datadir}/texmf-dist/tex/latex should be removed from
texlive-fonts-marvosym
Feel free to do it!
Yes, the texlive packages aren't perfect so anybody can change it if
(s)he find any bug in spec.
Zsolt
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
texlive issues
While trying to rebuild VirtualBox against libpng-1.5 it failed with some misleading message in %install (missing VBox.png). I narrowed it down to pdflatex call: $ cd ~/rpm/BUILD/VirtualBox-4.1.8_OSE $ ./kBuild/bin/linux.amd64/kmk_redirect -w+ti /dev/null -C out/linux.amd64/release/obj/manual/en_US -- pdflatex -halt-on-error -interaction batchmode UserManual.tex This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.1415926-1.40.9 (Web2C 7.5.7) %-line parsing enabled. pdflatex: fatal: Could not undump 1 4-byte item(s). $ After some google-fo I run `sudo fmtutil-sys --all' and it helped. VirtualBox builds now, so does vice (this one fails aon texi2dvi call). Are we missing fmtutil-sys call somewhere in texlive-*'s %post ? -- adamg ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive issues
I think doesn't need to call with option `--all'. If you'll see texlive-texmf.spec you can see an `fmtutil' call. Maybe need to rebuild because of upgrade of libpng. 2012/2/13 Adam Golebiowski ad...@pld-linux.org: While trying to rebuild VirtualBox against libpng-1.5 it failed with some misleading message in %install (missing VBox.png). I narrowed it down to pdflatex call: $ cd ~/rpm/BUILD/VirtualBox-4.1.8_OSE $ ./kBuild/bin/linux.amd64/kmk_redirect -w+ti /dev/null -C out/linux.amd64/release/obj/manual/en_US -- pdflatex -halt-on-error -interaction batchmode UserManual.tex This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.1415926-1.40.9 (Web2C 7.5.7) %-line parsing enabled. pdflatex: fatal: Could not undump 1 4-byte item(s). $ After some google-fo I run `sudo fmtutil-sys --all' and it helped. VirtualBox builds now, so does vice (this one fails aon texi2dvi call). Are we missing fmtutil-sys call somewhere in texlive-*'s %post ? -- adamg ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive issues
On Monday 13 of February 2012, Zsolt Udvari wrote: I think doesn't need to call with option `--all'. If you'll see texlive-texmf.spec you can see an `fmtutil' call. Maybe need to rebuild because of upgrade of libpng. rebuild actually caused the issue (and note that we still use texlive 2008). 2012/2/13 Adam Golebiowski ad...@pld-linux.org: While trying to rebuild VirtualBox against libpng-1.5 it failed with some misleading message in %install (missing VBox.png). I narrowed it down to pdflatex call: $ cd ~/rpm/BUILD/VirtualBox-4.1.8_OSE $ ./kBuild/bin/linux.amd64/kmk_redirect -w+ti /dev/null -C out/linux.amd64/release/obj/manual/en_US -- pdflatex -halt-on-error -interaction batchmode UserManual.tex This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.1415926-1.40.9 (Web2C 7.5.7) %-line parsing enabled. pdflatex: fatal: Could not undump 1 4-byte item(s). $ After some google-fo I run `sudo fmtutil-sys --all' and it helped. VirtualBox builds now, so does vice (this one fails aon texi2dvi call). Are we missing fmtutil-sys call somewhere in texlive-*'s %post ? -- adamg ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en -- Arkadiusz MiśkiewiczPLD/Linux Team arekm / maven.plhttp://ftp.pld-linux.org/ ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
texlive-jadetex fmt files
I'm not familiar with texlive.spec and fetching 1gb of texlive distribution just to test if a small commit works is not an option, so I'll ask here (uzsolt?). Our texlive-jadetex is missing fmt files (branch TEXLIVE_20080816, I don't care about HEAD as it's even bigger mess with jadetex files section commented out). I'd like to add them to generation list but the question is, where does fmtutil takes input files from? Is it source distribution or should I add BR: texlive-jadetex? ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: texlive-jadetex fmt files
On 21.09.2010 15:04, Jan Palus wrote: I'm not familiar with texlive.spec and fetching 1gb of texlive distribution just to test if a small commit works is not an option, so I'll ask here (uzsolt?). Our texlive-jadetex is missing fmt files (branch TEXLIVE_20080816, I don't care about HEAD as it's even bigger mess with jadetex files section commented out). I'd like to add them to generation list but the question is, where does fmtutil takes input files from? Is it source distribution or should I add BR: texlive-jadetex? I was enlightened by good people on #pld and missing fmt file was added to texlive-texmf.spec. ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
TeXLive, Lilypond and /usr/share/texmf/fonts/{source,tfm,type1} dirs
Hello, lilypond cannot be installed because of: error: lilypond-2.12.2-1.i686: req /usr/share/texmf/fonts/source not found error: lilypond-2.12.2-1.i686: req /usr/share/texmf/fonts/tfm not found error: lilypond-2.12.2-1.i686: req /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1 not found Are these directories still correct? Which package should provide them? Greets, Jacek ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive, Lilypond and /usr/share/texmf/fonts/{source,tfm,type1} dirs
lilypond cannot be installed because of: error: lilypond-2.12.2-1.i686: req /usr/share/texmf/fonts/source not found error: lilypond-2.12.2-1.i686: req /usr/share/texmf/fonts/tfm not found error: lilypond-2.12.2-1.i686: req /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1 not found Are these directories still correct? Which package should provide them? You should use /usr/share/texmf-dist directory. http://tug.org/texlive/doc/texlive-en/texlive-en.html#x1-110002.3 Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
TeTeX and TeXLive
Hi all! I'm working on TeXLive2009 and when anybody follows the changes, can see, that I'm splitting the texlive packages to a noarch and an arch-depend part (texlive-texmf.spec and texlive.spec). The packages names don't change (not will be e.g. texlive-texmf-latex-math or similar, only texlive-latex-math). In texlive.spec and texlive-texmf.spec there are many tetex-* provides (and obsoletes) because of compatibility with another, older packages (which (build)requires tetex-*). I want remove these provides in texlive.spec and texlive-texmf.spec, because these provides are a little difficult and imho unnecessary and redundant (yesterday I searched a provides-obsoletes-conlict about a half hour). The texlive packages are in repos about a half year (as I remember) and as I know, they work well. There are some difficulty with upgrade from tetex to texlive but as I know, can solve these problems with manual upgrade. And yes, texlive-packages need some more requires (mostly in latex-* packages, but I don't use e.g. chemical packages so I can't test them), so not perfect. So, what I want? From the developers: I want that the package maintainers check his/her packages and their (build)requires and if necessary, update the depends from tetex to texlive and increment the release (and test the package, of course ;)) From the users (and developers too ;)): if you use any TeX-system and you use tetex now, please upgrade to texlive. Thanks! Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 10:51:15 Zsolt Udvari wrote: So, what I want? From the developers: I want that the package maintainers check his/her packages and their (build)requires and if necessary, update the depends from tetex to texlive and increment the release (and test the package, of course ;)) From the users (and developers too ;)): if you use any TeX-system and you use tetex now, please upgrade to texlive. isn't this this is too complicated for average developer (tm)? how would he/she know what is the new name? imho it's better make some migration package for the upgrade process and maintain it separately, like there exists X11.spec. it could be also source for BR's to fill, maybe even adopt adapter.awk for that. [1] http://cvs.pld-linux.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/packages/X11/X11.spec?only_with_tag=AC-branch -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
From the developers: I want that the package maintainers check his/her packages and their (build)requires and if necessary, update the depends from tetex to texlive and increment the release (and test the package, of course ;)) From the users (and developers too ;)): if you use any TeX-system and you use tetex now, please upgrade to texlive. isn't this this is too complicated for average developer (tm)? Hm? I don't understand you. If a developer (package maintainer) updates and cares about foo.spec, (s)he knows that this package needs or not any tetex-package. how would he/she know what is the new name? From tetex to texlive? In the most cases the name is equal (texlive-foo instead of tetex-foo). Any cases: search in poldek which package provides tetex-foo and can find that texlive-foo2 provides tetex-foo. Or this isn't solution? imho it's better make some migration package for the upgrade process and maintain it separately, like there exists X11.spec. So do you say that should be create texlive2008.spec? Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
On Wednesday 25 November 2009 18:02:50 Zsolt Udvari wrote: isn't this this is too complicated for average developer (tm)? Hm? I don't understand you. If a developer (package maintainer) updates and cares about foo.spec, (s)he knows that this package needs or not any tetex-package. i update git-core.spec, i don't know a sh*t of tetex* crapolla. so i just disable the doc building then? i care for git-core as a program, not the madness behind documentation building. so i as git-core updater don't now anything which tetex is needed or is needed not whatsoever. -- glen ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
i update git-core.spec, i don't know a sh*t of tetex* crapolla. so i just disable the doc building then? i care for git-core as a program, not the madness behind documentation building. so i as git-core updater don't now anything which tetex is needed or is needed not whatsoever. Ask me :D I've checked the git-core.spec at this moment, and as I see, no tetex* BR. But if the most of developers say that the remove of tetex-provides is a very bad idea, I don't remove them ;) Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009, Zsolt Udvari wrote: i update git-core.spec, i don't know a sh*t of tetex* crapolla. so i just disable the doc building then? i care for git-core as a program, not the madness behind documentation building. so i as git-core updater don't now anything which tetex is needed or is needed not whatsoever. Ask me :D I've checked the git-core.spec at this moment, and as I see, no tetex* BR. But if the most of developers say that the remove of tetex-provides is a very bad idea, I don't remove them ;) Why don't we just update all specs on HEAD and DEVEL using some automagic awk script? If Provides work it should works too. -- Regards, Paweł ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeTeX and TeXLive
Why don't we just update all specs on HEAD and DEVEL using some automagic awk script? If Provides work it should works too. I'm not an awk-guru :) Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: [Th-test] Upgrade texlive
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Łukasz Maśko wrote: poldek:/all-avail upgrade tex* Przetwarzanie zależności... [...] błąd: texlive-fonts-jknappen = 1:20080816-5 is required by installed texlive-latex-jknappen-20080816-5.i686 [...] błąd: texlive-latex = 1:20080816-5 is required by installed texlive-latex-jknappen-20080816-5.i686 [...] błąd: 2 niespełnione zależności Wystąpiły błędy podczas instalacji It is fixed in texlive*-7 (already in th-test). Upgrade texlive using following command: poldek upgrade texlive-fonts-jknappen-20080816-7.i686 Otherwise it says: error: texlive-latex-jknappen-20080816-5.i686: req texlive-fonts-jknappen = 1:20080816-5 not found error: texlive-latex-jknappen-20080816-5.i686: req texlive-latex = 1:20080816-5 not found I do not understand why. Poldek does not support fonts-jknappen Obsoletes: latex-jknappen dependency, so I should also add Provides:? -- Paweł Zuzelski ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: packages: texlive/texlive.spec - removed empty epsutils and filters package...
On Saturday 16 May 2009 20:13:42 baggins wrote:
+%files jadetex
+%defattr(644,root,root,755)
...
+%doc %{texmfdist}/source/jadetex/base/ChangeLog*
...
+%exclude %{texmfdist}/source/jadetex/base/ChangeLog*
how is that supposed to work?
--
glen
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: packages: texlive/texlive.spec - removed empty epsutils and filters package...
On Mon, 18 May 2009, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
On Saturday 16 May 2009 20:13:42 baggins wrote:
+%files jadetex
+%defattr(644,root,root,755)
...
+%doc %{texmfdist}/source/jadetex/base/ChangeLog*
...
+%exclude %{texmfdist}/source/jadetex/base/ChangeLog*
how is that supposed to work?
No idea ;) And you missed %{texmfdist}/source/jadetex/base/*
That's why I'm trying to do a test build for a few days :/
Janek
--
Jan Rekorajski| ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
bagginsatmimuw.edu.pl | OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC | -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
texlive-xmltex vs. xmltex
Hi all! A problem on build servers: poldek: warning: /root/.poldek-cache/ftp_ftp.pld.kernel.pl.dists.th.PLD.noarch.RPMS/xmltex-20020625-5.noarch.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID e4f1bc2d poldek: Preparing... ## poldek: file /usr/bin/xmltex from install of xmltex-20020625-5.noarch conflicts with file from package texlive-xmltex-20080816-5.i686 See: http://buildlogs.pld-linux.org/index.php?dist=tharch=i686ok=0name=awesomeid=3db58531-4e71-41dc-bd1d-91d3c514177aaction=text But on carme (and on my machine): poldek:/all-avail desc -pc texlive-xmltex-20080816-5.i686 Package:texlive-xmltex-20080816-5.i686 Provides: xmltex Obsoletes: xmltex poldek:/all-avail install texlive-xmltex-20080816-5.i686 Processing dependencies... xmltex-20020625-5.noarch obsoleted by texlive-xmltex-20080816-5.i686 There are 1 package to install, 1 to remove: I texlive-xmltex-20080816-5.i686 R xmltex-20020625-5.noarch Need to get 732.7KB of archives (732.7KB to download). After unpacking 5.7MB will be used. Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:54 PM, Zsolt Udvari udvzs...@gmail.com wrote:
2008/12/29 Zsolt Udvari udvzs...@gmail.com:
Well it's entirely up to you, but I would propose somethinglike that:
~/public_html/texlive/RPMS/{i686,whatever_arch_is_built}
and then in the rpm directory run poldek -s . --mkidxz (sans quotes)
of course don't forget to make the files readable.
IMHO it's done.
http://carme.pld-linux.org/~uzsolt/texlive/RPMS/i686/
Updated to rel 0.9. It isn't perfect (yet), but more-more better. So,
please download, try and test it!
I've got error with pdflatex:
Transcript written on pdflatex.log.
mv: cannot move `pdflatex.log' to
`/var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdftex/pdflatex.log': Permission denied
mv: cannot move `pdflatex.fmt' to
`/var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdftex/pdflatex.fmt': Permission denied
I can't find the format file `pdflatex.fmt'!
after chown tjis folder - everything is ok.
--
:: Witek Firlej ::
Voiceless it cries, Wingless flutters, Toothless bites, Mouthless mutters.
:: http://grizz.pl :: http://grizz.firlej.org :: jid: grizz//jabster.pl ::
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
2008/12/29 Zsolt Udvari udvzs...@gmail.com:
Well it's entirely up to you, but I would propose somethinglike that:
~/public_html/texlive/RPMS/{i686,whatever_arch_is_built}
and then in the rpm directory run poldek -s . --mkidxz (sans quotes)
of course don't forget to make the files readable.
IMHO it's done.
http://carme.pld-linux.org/~uzsolt/texlive/RPMS/i686/
Updated to rel 0.9. It isn't perfect (yet), but more-more better. So,
please download, try and test it!
Zsolt
Ps.: Happy New Year!
Boldog Új Évet!
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
Hi all! I hope there are many-many pld users, who wants TeXLive. So, here is the uniqe chance! There is a(n almost) ready version of TeXLive (2008), but needed some testing. You can download the 0.8 release from carme-i686:/var/tmp/uzsolt-texlive. In this directory there is a file BASE_RPMS, which contains the name of the rpms, with them you can use/compile/view/... not too complicated TeX/LaTeX files. The TeXLive is more faster than old tetex, so please try and test it! You can bugreport or send me an email or can modify texlive.spec, when you found a bug. When there are not critical bugs, can change the release to 1, send STBR, and after rebuild texlive.spec (bootstrap). Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Zsolt Udvari udvzs...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all! I hope there are many-many pld users, who wants TeXLive. So, here is the uniqe chance! There is a(n almost) ready version of TeXLive (2008), but needed some testing. You can download the 0.8 release from carme-i686:/var/tmp/uzsolt-texlive. In this directory there is a file Give a full link and forward this msg to pld-user-list. -- :: Witek Firlej :: Voiceless it cries, Wingless flutters, Toothless bites, Mouthless mutters. :: http://grizz.pl :: http://grizz.firlej.org :: jid: grizz//jabster.pl :: ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Zsolt Udvari udvzs...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all! I hope there are many-many pld users, who wants TeXLive. So, here is the uniqe chance! There is a(n almost) ready version of TeXLive (2008), but needed some testing. You can download the 0.8 release from carme-i686:/var/tmp/uzsolt-texlive. In this directory there is a file BASE_RPMS, which contains the name of the rpms, with them you can use/compile/view/... not too complicated TeX/LaTeX files. The TeXLive is more faster than old tetex, so please try and test it! You can bugreport or send me an email or can modify texlive.spec, when you found a bug. Wouldn't it be better to post them in your ~/public_html together with poldek indexes? Regards, -- Łukasz [DeeJay1] Jernaś ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
Wouldn't it be better to post them in your ~/public_html together with
poldek indexes?
OK. But how? Should I create RPMS directory? And create all
architecture? I've built only i686 (my machine is i686 ;) ). And
should I create RPMS/{i686,x86_64,...}?
Zsolt
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
Well it's entirely up to you, but I would propose somethinglike that:
~/public_html/texlive/RPMS/{i686,whatever_arch_is_built}
and then in the rpm directory run poldek -s . --mkidxz (sans quotes)
of course don't forget to make the files readable.
IMHO it's done.
http://carme.pld-linux.org/~uzsolt/texlive/RPMS/i686/
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
On Monday 29 December 2008, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
Well it's entirely up to you, but I would propose somethinglike that:
~/public_html/texlive/RPMS/{i686,whatever_arch_is_built}
and then in the rpm directory run poldek -s . --mkidxz (sans quotes)
of course don't forget to make the files readable.
IMHO it's done.
http://carme.pld-linux.org/~uzsolt/texlive/RPMS/i686/
Great, thanks.
I tried installing it inside chroot and failed with:
[r...@ankh-th ~]# LANG=C poldek -s
http://carme.pld-linux.org/~uzsolt/texlive/RPMS/i686/ -n th --root /chr
(...)
poldek:/all-avail install texlive-
Processing dependencies...
texlive-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-dirs-fonts-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap
/usr/share/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/vntex)
texlive-dirs-fonts-20080816-0.8.i686 marks
texlive-fonts-marvosym-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap
/usr/share/texmf-dist/doc/latex/marvosym/mac/oztex)
error: texlive-fonts-marvosym-20080816-0.8.i686: req
/usr/share/texmf-dist/source/fonts/eurofont not found
texlive-fonts-marvosym-20080816-0.8.i686 marks
texlive-latex-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap /usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex)
texlive-latex-20080816-0.8.i686 marks tetex-latex-3.0-12.i686 (cap
/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex)
tetex-latex-3.0-12.i686 marks tetex-3.0-12.i686 (cap tetex = 1:3.0-12)
tetex-3.0-12.i686: required libkpathsea.so.4 is provided by following
packages:
a) kpathsea-3.0-12.i686
b) kpathsea-20080816-0.8.i686
Which one do you want to install ('Q' to abort)? [a]
tetex-3.0-12.i686 marks kpathsea-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap libkpathsea.so.4)
tetex-3.0-12.i686 marks tetex-dirs-fonts-3.0-12.i686 (cap tetex-dirs-fonts)
tetex-3.0-12.i686 marks tetex-fonts-cm-3.0-12.i686 (cap tetex-fonts-cm =
1:3.0-12)
tetex-3.0-12.i686 marks tetex-fonts-misc-3.0-12.i686 (cap tetex-fonts-misc
= 1:3.0-12)
tetex-3.0-12.i686 marks tetex-metafont-3.0-12.i686 (cap tetex-metafont =
1:3.0-12)
tetex-latex-3.0-12.i686 marks tetex-fonts-eurosym-3.0-12.i686 (cap
tetex-fonts-eurosym = 1:3.0-12)
tetex-latex-3.0-12.i686 marks tetex-fonts-latex-3.0-12.i686 (cap
tetex-fonts-latex = 1:3.0-12)
texlive-latex-20080816-0.8.i686 marks
texlive-fonts-eurosym-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap texlive-fonts-eurosym =
20080816-0.8)
texlive-fonts-eurosym-20080816-0.8.i686 marks
texlive-fonts-cm-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap /usr/share/texmf-dist/doc/fonts)
texlive-latex-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-fonts-latex-20080816-0.8.i686
(cap texlive-fonts-latex = 20080816-0.8)
texlive-fonts-latex-20080816-0.8.i686 marks
texlive-fonts-type1-bluesky-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap
/usr/share/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/bluesky)
texlive-latex-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-tex-ruhyphen-20080816-0.8.i686
(cap texlive-tex-ruhyphen)
error: texlive-tex-ruhyphen-20080816-0.8.i686: req
/usr/share/texmf-dist/source/generic not found
texlive-latex-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-tex-ukrhyph-20080816-0.8.i686
(cap texlive-tex-ukrhyph)
error: texlive-dirs-fonts-20080816-0.8.i686: req /usr/share/texmf-dist/tex4ht
not found
texlive-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-cslatex-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap
/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/cslatex/base)
texlive-cslatex-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-fonts-cs-20080816-0.8.i686
(cap texlive-fonts-cs = 20080816-0.8)
texlive-cslatex-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-plain-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap
texlive-plain = 20080816-0.8)
texlive-20080816-0.8.i686: required texconfig is provided by following
packages:
a) texconfig-3.0-12.i686
b) texconfig-20080816-0.8.i686
Which one do you want to install ('Q' to abort)? [a]
texlive-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texconfig-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap texconfig)
texconfig-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-dvips-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap
texlive-dvips = 20080816-0.8)
texconfig-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-metafont-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap
texlive-metafont = 20080816-0.8)
texconfig-20080816-0.8.i686 marks xdvi-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap xdvi =
20080816-0.8)
texlive-20080816-0.8.i686 marks texlive-fonts-misc-20080816-0.8.i686 (cap
texlive-fonts-misc = 20080816-0.8)
error: texlive-20080816-0.8.i686 conflicts with tetex-3.0-12.i686
And it gets more scary if I try to install texlive*.
adamg
--
http://www.mysza.eu.org/ | Everybody needs someone sure, someone true,
PLD Linux developer| Everybody needs some solid rock, I know I do.
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive rel 0.8 testing
I tried installing it inside chroot and failed with: Imho it needs some %dir. With simple rpm -i can you install them? I don't have more free time (I must learn and work - with using of texlive ;) ), so if anyone has free time, feel free and modify the spec file ;) Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive again
First: you must set TEXMFMAIN environment variable (this maybe isn't error, but would be nice when shouldn't set). Second: it missed *.fmt and I don't know how can I create. This the biggest problem. It's done. Next problem: sometimes needs to create fonts, and there are few possibilities: - create the fonts to $HOME/.texlive-2008 directory - imho this is not too good solution - create the fonts to /var/lib/texmf (or any other directory) - it's the better, but there are problems with this. It must be writeable by all users. The idea, that its owner/group is 'texmf', and some files of texlive has sgid, doesn't work, because it calls 'mkdir', 'cp'. What should I do? Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive again
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 04:36:52PM +0100, Zsolt Udvari wrote:
First: you must set TEXMFMAIN environment variable (this maybe isn't
error, but would be nice when shouldn't set).
Second: it missed *.fmt and I don't know how can I create. This the
biggest problem.
It's done.
Next problem: sometimes needs to create fonts, and there are few
possibilities:
- create the fonts to $HOME/.texlive-2008 directory - imho this is not
too good solution
- create the fonts to /var/lib/texmf (or any other directory) - it's
the better, but there are problems with this.
It must be writeable by all users. The idea, that its owner/group is
'texmf', and some files of texlive has sgid, doesn't work, because it
calls 'mkdir', 'cp'.
What should I do?
Could you tell us more about those fonts ? As far as I understand this
is just some font cache.
- Is it generated for every shape and size ?
- How big are those files, compared to source ?
- How much time does it take to generate them ?
- How often same cache is used ? How probable is that different users
will be interested in same font cache ?
Maybe we could generate this cache for fonts we distribute and place it
somewere under /usr/share ? And if a user needs some additional fonts
she could just use that $HOME/.tex... directory.
--
Sparky{PI] -- Przemyslaw _ ___ _ _ ... LANG...Pl..Ca..Es..En
/) ___ ___ _ _ || Iskra | | _ \| | | : WWWppcrcd.pld-linux.org
\\| -_)'___| ||^'||//\\//| _/| | | : JID..sparkyatjabberes.org
(/|| (_-_|_|| ||\\ || |_ |_| |_| _| : Mailsparkyatpld-linux.org
___
pld-devel-en mailing list
pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org
http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive again
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 07:16:33PM +0100, Przemyslaw Iskra wrote: On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 04:36:52PM +0100, Zsolt Udvari wrote: First: you must set TEXMFMAIN environment variable (this maybe isn't error, but would be nice when shouldn't set). Second: it missed *.fmt and I don't know how can I create. This the biggest problem. It's done. Next problem: sometimes needs to create fonts, and there are few possibilities: - create the fonts to $HOME/.texlive-2008 directory - imho this is not too good solution - create the fonts to /var/lib/texmf (or any other directory) - it's the better, but there are problems with this. It must be writeable by all users. The idea, that its owner/group is 'texmf', and some files of texlive has sgid, doesn't work, because it calls 'mkdir', 'cp'. What should I do? Could you tell us more about those fonts ? As far as I understand this is just some font cache. - Is it generated for every shape and size ? - How big are those files, compared to source ? - How much time does it take to generate them ? - How often same cache is used ? How probable is that different users will be interested in same font cache ? Maybe we could generate this cache for fonts we distribute and place it somewere under /usr/share ? And if a user needs some additional fonts she could just use that $HOME/.tex... directory. that's bit complicated. if you use different dpi for you dvi documents, then fonts should be regenerated for you. for sure people are using 300dpi, 600dpi, but... you never know :) wrobell wrob...@pld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive again
On Sat, Dec 27, 2008 at 04:36:52PM +0100, Zsolt Udvari wrote: First: you must set TEXMFMAIN environment variable (this maybe isn't error, but would be nice when shouldn't set). Second: it missed *.fmt and I don't know how can I create. This the biggest problem. It's done. Next problem: sometimes needs to create fonts, and there are few possibilities: - create the fonts to $HOME/.texlive-2008 directory - imho this is not too good solution - create the fonts to /var/lib/texmf (or any other directory) - it's the better, but there are problems with this. It must be writeable by all users. The idea, that its owner/group is 'texmf', and some files of texlive has sgid, doesn't work, because it calls 'mkdir', 'cp'. What should I do? that was solved in tetex.spec, isn't it? /var/cache/fonts has sticky bit if i reckon well. wrobell wrob...@pld-linux.org ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
TeXLive again
Hi all! First: happy and merry christmas! Second: as you know, I'm working on texlive.spec. From it you can create the packages (all platforms, except ppc), but it don't works. Maybe it missed some %dir, and maybe(?) there are mixed (need cleaning) but the main error: can't create a simple dvi file. E.g. from simple 'hello.tex' -- code -- Hello, World! \bye -- end code -- can't build dvi output (tex hello.tex). First: you must set TEXMFMAIN environment variable (this maybe isn't error, but would be nice when shouldn't set). Second: it missed *.fmt and I don't know how can I create. This the biggest problem. So, if anyone use(d) (La)TeX and knows (a little) how it works, and has free time, please check and try it! And correct the texlive.spec or send me his/her suggestions. Thanks! Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
2008/12/7 Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Heck even gasoline is now US$1.60/per gallon now ... Well, where most PLD devs/users live it's about 4.61498478 USD per gallon of super... Regards, -- Łukasz [DeeJay1] Jerna ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Dec 7, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Łukasz Jernaś wrote: 2008/12/7 Jeff Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Heck even gasoline is now US$1.60/per gallon now ... Well, where most PLD devs/users live it's about 4.61498478 USD per gallon of super... The more interesting questions are What's the $/Gb and $/Mbps costs? Computers don't (yet) run on super or beer. I'm sure a Polish vodka powered opteron would scream ... ;-) 73 de Jeff smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 06:35:29PM +0100, Zsolt Udvari wrote: Hi folks! I want to create texlive.spec, and it's under developing. I use the tetex.spec as the beginning, but I've a question: should I split more subpackages the texlive package? What I think: the style-files, documentclass-files, e.g. exam.cls put into texlive-latex-exam, etc. When you think it, I make it. Imho it would be better (nearer to pld-philosphy: http://www.pld-linux.org/Features - Micropackages). well, tetex.spec went bit nuts :) i do remember that tetex package split gave us real HDD space[1] and network usage[2] savings, so it is worth the effort. for example, tetex-*context* packages, which i don't use, are over 38MB in size (to download). if you know that adding some subpackage will save several MB in size, then why not. otherwise i would not bother. regards, wrobell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] my asus eee pc has 4GB of storage, so don't event try to tell me that sdd space is cheap [2] i am accessing internet via 3G, so please don't tell me that bandwith is cheap, as well ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 05:19:41PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: On Dec 6, 2008, at 4:41 PM, wrobell wrote: [1] my asus eee pc has 4GB of storage, so don't event try to tell me that sdd space is cheap [2] i am accessing internet via 3G, so please don't tell me that bandwith is cheap, as well Well asus eee is not exactly representative hqrdware, and 3G doesn't exactly supply bandwidth yet, are the flaws in your reasoning abt packaging. you are right for asus eee pc, but still... it is nice to have tetex on it and not waste over 60MB in unneeded stuff. hence, pld on my machine instead of other distro. in case of 3G... well... let's allow the flame to start. i don't mind 10KB/s download speeds (as _not_ advertised) but 1GB for 9.99eu or 0.49eu for 1MB if you are over your limit is not cheap. for me, at least. But points noted fer sure, TeX is not easy packaging, never has been. indeed :) best regards, wrobell [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Dec 6, 2008, at 5:35 PM, wrobell wrote: But points noted fer sure, TeX is not easy packaging, never has been. indeed :) Note I dinna say either of (Diskspace|bandwidth) is cheap. Being stoopid is way more costly than commodity items. Ugly and evil have the same flaws. Heck even gasoline is now US$1.60/per gallon now ... 73 de Jeff smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 06:05:57PM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote: On Dec 6, 2008, at 5:35 PM, wrobell wrote: But points noted fer sure, TeX is not easy packaging, never has been. indeed :) Note I dinna say either of (Diskspace|bandwidth) is cheap. Being stoopid is way more costly than commodity items. Ugly and evil have the same flaws. well, every time, we started to talk about splitting packages on this list, somebody claimed that something (cpu, bandwidth, disk space) is cheap, hence my off-topic remarks. but it seems, that if one tries to prevent stupid discussion about somebody's dick length[1], then we are ending up with an off-topic, philosophical thread. my fault, lesson learnt. [...] regards, wrobell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] my desktop machine is so huuug, baby ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Dec 6, 2008, at 6:37 PM, wrobell wrote: [1] my desktop machine is so huuug, baby Well I dunno nothin' about your desktop. But my desktop has accumulated 1,337,924.20 cobblestones patiently grinding away, mostly [EMAIL PROTECTED], through BOINC. I hope to contribute 0.005% to the USA cobblestone total sometime in the next 12 months. I am currently at the 99.529% percintile ... It's __ALL__ about what you do with your desktop, not otherwise ;-) 73 de Jeff smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Zsolt Udvari [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks! I want to create texlive.spec, and it's under developing. I use the tetex.spec as the beginning, but I've a question: should I split more subpackages the texlive package? What I think: the style-files, documentclass-files, e.g. exam.cls put into texlive-latex-exam, etc. When you think it, I make it. Imho it would be better (nearer to pld-philosphy: http://www.pld-linux.org/Features - Micropackages). Since tetex is unmaintained we will certainly need TeXLive at one point or another. I suggest you make the package split however you feel is appropriate, add necessary obsoletes and just commit it. Others will have their chance to improve upon your work if they feel that's necessary before migrating PLD to the new TeX. Currently the tetex-* package tree in PLD is huge and there is no point in splitting just because we can. I'm sure nobody will shoot you for doing your part even if others don't agree with the subpackages you propose :) -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
Since tetex is unmaintained we will certainly need TeXLive at one point or another. I suggest you make the package split however you feel is appropriate, add necessary obsoletes and just commit it. Others will have their chance to improve upon your work if they feel that's necessary before migrating PLD to the new TeX. Currently the tetex-* package tree in PLD is huge and there is no point in splitting just because we can. And one more reason: I'm (relative) beginner in LaTeX (I've used about 5 years plainTeX), and sometimes not found the package what I need (last time was the exam class). But when it's splitted many subpackage, I can see it in poldek with 'ls texlive-latex-*', and 'desc texlive-latex-foo', so maybe I (and others) can found the needed package (=package with a specified feature) easier. Zsolt ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
Re: TeXLive
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 19:05:35 +0100, Zsolt Udvari wrote: (last time was the exam class). But when it's splitted many subpackage, I can see it in poldek with 'ls texlive-latex-*', and 'desc texlive-latex-foo', so maybe I (and others) can found the needed package (=package with a specified feature) easier. In case of LaTeX resources it's easy to find them by file name: rsearch -f /ifthen/ rsearch -f /multirow/ rsearch -f /tabularx/ -- Tomasz Pala [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ pld-devel-en mailing list pld-devel-en@lists.pld-linux.org http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
