Re: [tex-live] TeXlive for Debian - version 2005.09.15-1 online
Hi Wolfgang! Hi all!
On Fre, 16 Sep 2005, W. Borgert wrote:
> OK, I just installed, so the complaining can start :-)
You are welcome, btw, we could also start using the BTS on alioth, I
just got pkg-texlive approved:
https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-texlive/
So you are welcome to use it ;-)
> It would be really cool to get the packages into Debian
> (experimental or unstable), so that we can start to use the BTS
A mentor Neil is already working on reviewing the packages.
Interestingly there was a problem in his pbuilder/sid and he couldn't
build the packages (binaries), while in my pbuilder/sid it did work.
But we are working on it.
> depends on tetex, but should depend on tetex|texlive. Without
This is a good reason, we are doing what we can.
> As I have still installation problems (e.g. tex-common has to be
> installed before texlive-*, missing Pre-Depends?, some packages
Strange, very strange.
I purged *ALL* texlive and tex-common packages, and then removed all the
left overs (there are still some), then I called
apt-get install texlive-latexrecommended texlive-fontsrecommended
and everything installed cleanly in my sid-chroot.
> 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.
I will check out piuparts, too.
> /usr/bin/mktexpk: line 141: gsftopk: command not found
Hmm, will look into it.
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c/mktexupd: /var/cache/fonts/ls-R unwritable.
I know about this, I have to check what is the best option.
But as the ls-R and /var/cache/fonts directories are now created by
tex-common in fact it is a problem of tex-common where we have to make
the change. It was in tetex the debconf question.
> kpathsea: Running mktexmf nullfont
> ! I can't find file `nullfont'.
> ...
> grep: nullfont.log: No such file or directory
Humpf. No idea. Could you please provide a list of what you installed
and a test case?
> 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
My policy is to leave out only those things which are already packaged
for Debian and provide a more complete installation. Example: cm-super
in TeXlive is (was) not fully complete, thus the cm-super package.
Otherwise I will have to check on the other packages being compatible
and uptodate.
> 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.
The problem is that the former normally only forms a part of a larger
texlive package.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining AT logic DOT at> Università di Siena
sip:preining@at43.tuwien.ac.at +43 (0) 59966-690018
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAROOM (vb.)
To make loud noises during the night to let the burglars know you are
in.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff
Reply to: