Bug#175343: marked as done (texmf-local is missing)
Your message dated Sun, 5 Jan 2003 02:15:18 +0000
with message-id <20030105021518.GB3960@polya>
and subject line Bug#175341: texmf-local is missing
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Jan 2003 20:45:24 +0000
>From juhtolv@cc.jyu.fi Sat Jan 04 14:45:24 2003
Return-path: <juhtolv@cc.jyu.fi>
Received: from verso.st.jyu.fi [130.234.4.66] ([SjX0k2gVPglgau0utPJkIzT6vEuAVUJG])
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18UvAZ-0002hR-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:45:23 -0600
Received: (from juhtolv@localhost)
by verso.st.jyu.fi (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h04KjLO26488
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:45:21 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: verso.st.jyu.fi: juhtolv set sender to juhtolv@cc.jyu.fi using -f
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:45:21 +0200
From: Juhapekka Tolvanen <juhtolv@cc.jyu.fi>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: texmf-local is missing
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20030104224521.A26454@verso.st.jyu.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
Organization: =?iso-8859-1?Q?University_of_Jyv=E4skyl=E4?=
X-URL: http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/
X-Mailer-URL: http://www.mutt.org/
X-Editor: Vim http://vim.sourceforge.net/
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.7-10 on an i686
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by verso.st.jyu.fi id h04KjLO26488
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.3 required=5.0
tests=NOSPAM_INC,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT,
X_AUTH_WARNING
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 1.0.2+20021025-3
According to UK List of TeX Frequently Asked Questions installation of
local packages must be done like this:
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=3Dinstpackages
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=3Dwherefiles
But in Debian texmf-local do not fscking exist at all! When I run
"locate", it can't find such thing.
I have these lines in my /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf , but IIRC I added them
by hand:
% A place for local additions to a "standard" texmf tree. For example:
TEXMFLOCAL =3D /usr/local/share/texmf
TEXMFOLDLOCAL =3D /usr/local/lib/texmf
But why don't we have such thing out-of-the-box? I think
/usr/local/share/texmf-local would be more canonical name and it won't
confuse newbies reading UK TeX FAQ.
--=20
Juhapekka "naula" Tolvanen * * * http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~juhtolv/index.html
"L=E4mmit=E4 ei laatikot, ei rusinatkaan luumukiisselin. Riisipuuron
j=E4=E4tyneen nyt verannalta sis=E4=E4n kiikutin. Ja kurkkuun j=E4=E4nyt =
mantelikin
viimein irtoaa vaik' parempi kun pysytellyt ois vaan paikallaan." Viikate
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 175341-done) by bugs.debian.org; 5 Jan 2003 02:15:23 +0000
>From jdg@polya.uklinux.net Sat Jan 04 20:15:23 2003
Return-path: <jdg@polya.uklinux.net>
Received: from mail2.uklinux.net [80.84.72.32]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18V0Ju-0004Ui-00; Sat, 04 Jan 2003 20:15:22 -0600
Received: from polya (bts-0807.dialup.zetnet.co.uk [194.247.51.39])
by mail2.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09CC409FB6
for <175341-done@bugs.debian.org>; Sun, 5 Jan 2003 02:15:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from jdg by polya with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18V0Jr-00017d-00; Sun, 05 Jan 2003 02:15:19 +0000
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 02:15:18 +0000
From: Julian Gilbey <jdg@debian.org>
To: 175341-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#175341: texmf-local is missing
Message-ID: <20030105021518.GB3960@polya>
References: <[🔎] 20030104223506.A25800@verso.st.jyu.fi>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20030104223506.A25800@verso.st.jyu.fi>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
Sender: Julian Gilbey <jdg@polya.uklinux.net>
Delivered-To: 175341-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-16.1 required=5.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
SIGNATURE_SHORT_SPARSE,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,USER_AGENT,
USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 10:35:06PM +0200, Juhapekka Tolvanen wrote:
>
> Package: tetex-base
> Version: 1.0.2+20021025-3
>
> According to UK List of TeX Frequently Asked Questions installation of
> local packages must be done like this:
>
> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=instpackages
> http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=wherefiles
I note that the answer there says:
(1) Always install new files in a local texmf tree. The root directory
will be named something like:
teTeX: /usr/share/texmf-local/
fpTeX: c:\fptex\texmf.local\
mikTeX: c:\localtexmf\
Let's write $TEXMF for this root, whatever it is for your system.
That doesn't sound like it says that the local tree *must* be
/usr/share/texmf-local/ to me!!
> But in Debian texmf-local do not fscking exist at all! When I run
> "locate", it can't find such thing.
Correct; we follow the TeX Directory Standard (which does not specify
where local files are to be stored) and the Filesystem Hierarchy
Standard, which specifies where to root the tree. And the FHS
specifies that local data should be stored under /usr/local.
It would be better to update the FAQ. I've just mailed the
FAQ maintainers to request this.
> I have these lines in my /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf , but IIRC I added them
> by hand:
>
> % A place for local additions to a "standard" texmf tree. For example:
> TEXMFLOCAL = /usr/local/share/texmf
> TEXMFOLDLOCAL = /usr/local/lib/texmf
No, these are part of the standard Debian install.
> But why don't we have such thing out-of-the-box? I think
> /usr/local/share/texmf-local would be more canonical name and it won't
> confuse newbies reading UK TeX FAQ.
Why is /usr/local/share/texmf-local more sensible or canonical than
/usr/local/share/texmf? The first one has "local" twice, the second
one therefore being redundant.
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Julian Gilbey, website: http://www.polya.uklinux.net/
Debian GNU/Linux Developer, see: http://people.debian.org/~jdg/
Visit http://www.thehungersite.com/ to help feed the hungry
Reply to: