Re: [tex-live] TeXlive for Debian - version 2005.09.15-1 online
Hi,
OK, I just installed, so the complaining can start :-)
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 10:05:54AM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> So the binary packages are only working for sid, but I hope to make
> packages for sarge and etch soon.
It would be really cool to get the packages into Debian
(experimental or unstable), so that we can start to use the BTS
instead of informal mails to track problems. We could also
start to file bugs against other packages, e.g. if a package
depends on tetex, but should depend on tetex|texlive. Without
officially Debianised packages, this is not possible. We have
only 471 days until etch release, a revelation told me.
> As usual, the log files of the creation process are in
> http://www.tug.org/texlive/Debian/log/
> The file lintian.log shows that the errors/warnings are getting less.
> THe two errors now present are rubbish, lintian is stupid on this.
As I have still installation problems (e.g. tex-common has to be
installed before texlive-*, missing Pre-Depends?, some packages
installed cleanly only on second try), I recommend to try out
piuparts, additionally to both lintian and linda. piuparts
should find this kind of problems.
Other remarks:
1. When compiling LaTeX files, I get some alarming messages:
/usr/bin/mktexpk: line 141: gsftopk: command not found
and:
/usr/share/texmf/web2c/mktexupd: /var/cache/fonts/ls-R unwritable.
and:
kpathsea: Running mktexmf nullfont
! I can't find file `nullfont'.
...
grep: nullfont.log: No such file or directory
Help!
2. texlive contains - of course - a lot of stuff that is already
in Debian, not only tetex, but things like jadetex etc. Such
duplication is inevitable, but should be reduced as much as
possible. Having source twice in Debian means, that bugs need
to be fixed two times. Worse, if there is a security bug, our
already hard working security teams have to create multiple
fixes for the same problem. So: At least if there is no or only
a small difference between the present Debian package and a
texlive package, the latter (or the former) should be abolished.
So much for complaining, now a big THANKS for your effort!
Cheers,
--
W. Borgert <debacle@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~debacle/
Reply to: