Bug#384945: texlive system will not install

[Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>]

Hi all!

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
> > In the recent upgrade to KDE 3.5.4 kdegraphics seemed to require texlive
> > packages, but these failed with  an error that a file was owned by two
> > packages, and that I should remove texlive.  I attempted to do so.
> 
> 1. Why does or did kdegraphics require texlive, and is not satisfied
>    with tetex?

kdegraphics never required texlive, not even provide alternative deps on
texlive. Eg. kdegraphcs depends on kdvi which in turn recommends
tetex-bin.

> >  List of ls-R files
> >
> > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 2006-08-27 23:16 /usr/share/texmf-texlive/ls-R -> /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXLIVE
> 
> 2. It is strange that there is only one ls-R file.  Please send us the
>    output of

Probably because most other packages are removed, and mktexlsr has never
been called.

> > ######################################
> >  Config files
> > total 20
> > drwx------ 2 ross ross  256 2006-06-26 09:18 Desktop
> > drwxr-xr-x 3 ross ross  256 2006-02-15 21:18 download
> > drwx------ 2 ross ross   48 2006-02-14 10:42 Mail
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1828 2006-03-31 21:14 pci
> > -rw------- 1 ross ross    0 2006-04-16 15:21 postponed
> > drwxr-xr-x 2 ross ross   80 2006-06-17 16:16 RCS
> > -rw------- 1 ross ross 8612 2006-07-22 12:13 sent
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 ross ross  850 2006-06-25 23:18 testspam
> 
> 3. I've never seen such an output in a texlive bugreport, but then I
>    haven't seen lots of them, being focused on teTeX until recently.  Is
>    this expected? 

This comes from an unchecked code in the bug script, where texmf.cnf
fmtutuil.cnf updmap.cnf is NOT found:
for i in texmf.cnf fmtutil.cnf updmap.cfg ; do
  f=`kpsewhich --format='web2c files' $i`
  ls -l $f >&3
done

Already changed in the svn depot.

> > texlive recommends no packages.
> 
> 4. All texlive packages that do not directly depend on tex-common should
>    have a reportbug control file that has a "report-with: tex-common"
>    statement, and maybe more packages.

Good idea, will do this...

> 5. As far as I understood, dvipdfmx calls mktexlsr unconditionally, this
>    should probably be a separate bug.

Yes, should be.

Best wishes

Norbert