Re: Issues with and after upgrade to texlive
Hi Frans,
many thanks for your feedback!
Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> wrote:
> I was just on the point of making the switch from teTeX to TeX Live on one
> system until I noticed that installing Tex Live would take a whopping
> 591 MB of extra diskspace if one follows aptitude...
>
> After first upgrading only unrelated packages, things became a bit more
> manageable. It turned out that unselecting a number of recommended
> packages I could actually do with only 23 MB more diskspace [1], without
> at first seeming to lose any important functionality.
>
> [1] Ignoring diskspace freed by not replacing tetex-doc (61 MB) with
> texlive-doc (85 MB).
>
> At first I also had the texlive meta package unselected. Adding that back
> got me back to 201 MB _extra_ diskspace again, so I've decided to see if
> I can do without or not...
All the metapackages are meant as convenience for users. If you want a
minimal installation for a particular purpose, e.g. building a package
or document, you should select individual packages. For example,
"texlive" as well as "tetex-bin" will select ConTeXt (from an external
source package) which isn't needed at all if you process LaTeX
documents.
> Next I noticed that this would still leave me without any hyphenation
> support for languages the installer builds. Adding back those I currently
> need resulted in 89.6 MB _extra_ diskspace again.
> Note that it is rather unfortunate that these cannot be easily installed
> automatically (at least without installing _a lot_ more packages by build
> depending on texlive-full) as this will mean they may not be pulled in
> during a lot of builds on buildds and thus no or suboptimal hyphenation
> in a lot of our documentation!
> I would strongly suggest introducing a meta package texlive-lang-all. Also
> because depending on individual texlive-lang-* packages would mean
> running the risk of missing new languages when they become available.
Yepp, that's probably the way to go.
> All in all, the upgrade is far from straightforward if you like your
> system relatively clean and texlive seems incredibly more diskhungry than
> tetex was.
>
>
> After installing what I thought I needed (and having the dependencies from
> jadetex satisfied), I tried building the installation guide, but ended up
> with:
> $ jadetex build.tmp/install.en.tex
> This is pdfTeXk, Version 3.141592-1.40.3 (Web2C 7.5.6)
> %&-line parsing enabled.
> ---! /var/lib/texmf/web2c/jadetex.fmt was written by pdfetex
> (Fatal format file error; I'm stymied)
>
> No idea what to do with this...
jadetex has a RC bug which I'm currently investigating. But this sounds
a bit like a different thing, and might be related to your
configuration. What's the output of
grep jadetex /etc/texmf/fmt.d/*
grep jadetex /var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf
> Some packages for which I'm not sure if I'll need them or not are:
> - lmodern
Recommended for new documents, but not needed unless the toolchain which
generates LaTeX code is changed.
> - pgf
Not needed if you don't know about it, or install latex-beamer which
Depends on it
> - texlive-font-utils
Not needed if you don't know anything about the CTAN packages in the
long description
> - texlive-fonts-extra
If you need that for any generated code, it's either a bug in the code
generator or in texlive splitting. Only when you decide you want one of
these fonts for your personal hand-made documents, then it's time to
install it.
> - texlive-generic-recommended
> - texlive-generic-extra
While these *might* be useful with LaTeX in special cases, usually they
will be used by other formats (Plain TeX and such).
> Here is what I ended up with for now. Possibly I can still remove the
> hlatex packages now.
hlatex is needed for some chinese documents; I wouldn't install it
unless required by dependencies.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Reply to: