De Maxim Cournoyer le 16/10/2023 à 15:46:
> My next question would be; how is this ls-R file produced in Guix?
That I do not know, but I would assume mktexlsr is called at some point when
building the profile.
> Does it matches the expectations of upstream for producing such file?
I don't know
Hello,
De Maxim Cournoyer le 14/10/2023 à 18:06:
> > I tried to explore this but I see no reason why the ls-R files would be
> > ignored and I don't know how to explore this further. I do want to
> > contribute
> > to a solution, because right now texlive is practically unusable in Guix.
>
>
De Nicolas Goaziou le 09/10/2023 à 16:03:
> Emmanuel Beffara writes:
> > I do want to contribute to a solution, because right now texlive is
> > practically unusable in Guix.
>
> FWIW, I use modular TeX Live regularly, so "unusable" is probably a bit
> st
Hello,
De Nicolas Goaziou le 13/09/2023 à 14:39:
> Emmanuel Beffara writes:
>
> > I am facing a severe performance issue with TeX Live: compilation of any
> > document is an order of magnitude slower with a Guix installed system as
> > compared to a manual installati
De Olivier Dion le 12/09/2023 à 19:11:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2023, Emmanuel Beffara wrote:
> > Hello Guix devel,
> >
> > I am facing a severe performance issue with TeX Live: compilation of any
> > document is an order of magnitude slower with a Guix installed system
Hello Guix devel,
I am facing a severe performance issue with TeX Live: compilation of any
document is an order of magnitude slower with a Guix installed system as
compared to a manual installation. Is anyone confronted to this phenomenon, or
is there a way to fix this ?
I suspect the problem
Hello,
Thanks for the instructive feedback!
De Nicolas Goaziou le 28/08/2023 à 13:01:
> Every texlive-* package comes with its documentation, in a separate
> output. "doc" output are not uncommon at all in Guix. Therefore,
> I disagree with the inconsistency you're talking about.
Ok, I admit I
Hellon
De Andreas Enge le 28/08/2023 à 20:05:
> if I understand things correctly, we would like the following behaviour
> for propagated inputs in the texlive context:
> We have these metapackages with propagated inputs; all of these inputs
> have "out" and "doc". Then we would like to
uctant to add more artificial packages (i.e., not
> known to TeX Live distribution). Also, it might be as simple to do it in
> one's own manifest.
I think it would make much more sense to have "doc" outputs also for
collections and schemes. It would be consistent with the structure of
individual packages and would not require artificial packages.
Having individual package documentations in one's manifests is of course
doable but it is contradictory with the approach of collections.
--
Emmanuel Beffara
Hi,
De Nicolas Goaziou le 28/08/2023 à 20:01:
> Nicolas Goaziou writes:
> >>> In any case, I suggest to write a proper bug report for this. Hopefully,
> >>> someone with better understanding about the implications of GUIX_TEXMF
> >>> will be able to solve this.
> >>
> >> I can do that for the
10 matches
Mail list logo
