On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 08:02:54PM -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Ken Moffat wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
> I was just looking at this and wondered why asymptote was in with other X
> programs.
>
It seemed a good idea. It needs texlive programs to build it, but it
can be used to create diagrams or images outside of TeX, e.g. as
png. But most people who use it will probably put them into some
form of tex document.
>
> >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.
>
> Yes, there are too many conflicts to try to use them together. It ought to
> be controlled by PATH if a user wants to be able to revert to a previous
> year, but only one set of programs should be used at a time. If I understand
> correctly, the number of libraries is minimal and all the executables in the
> binary install are static.
Mostly correct, the problem is trying to use biber across multiple
source installs. If you use the binary, it "extracts" all the
required perl modules (i.e. its own versions) at runtime from within
the binary (uses yet another perl module, I did not read the
details). But if you build biber from source, it has not only a
humungous collection of modules in /usr/lib/perl5 on which it
depends, but also it's own modules there, as well as a dependency
on the correct version of biblatex which is installed into the texmf
tree.
If somebody wants to use multiple years of texlive from source, with
biber, they could probably settle on the same version for each year.
I was looking at fedora cgit earlier - they now have biber (at
last!), but they are still using 1.8 which was what was being used
when attempts to get it into fedora started.
> >3. Omitting --bindir (sorry, this is _long_)
> >
[...]
> >
> >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.
>
> My reaction is that /opt/texlive/YYYY/bin would be better for us, but it
> *is* different from what upstream intends. I can go either way.
Actually, I think they expect to use either
/usr/local/texlive/YYYY/bin/ARCH-linux or similar in $HOME.
> >For the binary install, I suppose this can be achieved by doing the
> >binary install, and then moving everything out of it, e.g.
> >
> >$pushd /opt/texlive/2015/bin
> >$mv -v *-linux/* .
> >$rmdir *-linux
> >$popd
>
> That seems awkward, but you are our expert in this area. I'll defer to your
> judgement.
Looking at the binary installer, you can choose different schemes
(to install less), but there is no option to change directory names,
only the prefix. If it works (not yet tested!) it's only four
commands.
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
