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
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
