I've now started to look at TL 2015. At the moment, I've done the
main source build (as always, fun - needed to manually install some
perl modules from texlive-source before pdflatex would run, and I've
had to ask a question on their list about how to make context run),
and I will get around to the binary in a few days (that will be on
another machine - at the moment I'm intermittently working on some
scripts to report where my own buildscripts use different package
versions from what is in BLFS).
But with the benefit of hindsight, I would like to suggest changing
a# few of the details of what I've been doing in the TeX stack.
These _now_ seem to me to be the correct way forward, but I'm still
very much of a novice in TeX so I'm open to alternative views,
particularly fropm people whoi actually use any of it.
1. Asymptote belongs with the other texlive programs
Move asymptote to the typesetting chapter, because it is part of
texlive and needs to be rebuilt if you upgrade to a new TL year.
2. Not putting things in /usr
I have been putting kpathsea into /usr to avoid messing with
/etc/ld.so.conf - with the benefit of hindsight I now think that
putting it into /opt/texlive/YYYY is better - I have not yet
attempted to run a 2015 install on a system where 2014 is already
installed (and I'm not sure if disk space, or how I personally set up
$PATH in my own .bashrc, will let me try mixing the two), but using a
version of kpathsea from the previous year _during_ the source
install/tests sounds unwise.
3. Omitting --bindir (sorry, this is _long_)
I ran a manual source build using a user-writable directory (but
still had to DESTDIR because of kpathsea and the other stuff which
puts headers and libraries in /usr - now also lua52 and luajit) but
forgot to specify --bindir : the result was that the programs went
into prefix/bin/ instead of prefix/bin/x84_64-linux/.
At the moment, we use /opt/texlive/YYYY/bin/x86_64-linux (or
i386-linux) because we intend to overwrite the programs from the
binary (that is how we _used_to_ bootstrap texlive-from-source) and
the binary is intended for multiple architectures and can install
all of them if you wish (e.g. a central host for multiple
architectures and even multiple different systems, e.g. at a
university).
I have previously been asked to allow people to continue to use
the binary, and anyway using /opt/texlive seems correct to me for
something with updates each mid-year. On a longterm distro qemu
install I discovered it was using TL from the previous year and
will not be updated (no more tl updates for that year!), even though
it is in /usr - by using /opt/texlive/YYYY we avoid that problem
for anybody who wants to use the binary - and yes, upstream
recommend use of the binary. Arguably, people who use the updater
in the binary can get newer updates (during the first year) which we
will not pick up in the from-source version.
But now, it seems to me that in BLFS (which does not support
multilib) we can avoid this redundant {x86_64|i386}-linux directory,
the correct bin directory should be /opt/texlive/YYYY/bin and for a
source install, which we prefer, we can do that.
For the binary install, I suppose this can be achieved by doing the
binary install, and then moving everything out of it, e.g.
$pushd /opt/texlive/2015/bin
$mv -v *-linux/* .
$rmdir *-linux
$popd
(Not yet tested)
Opinions, please.
ĸen
--
Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady.
Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
