UPDATE: TexLive 2007 to newer version

[luis.beca@…]

Please update TexLive 2007 (and related packages) to the just released 2008 distribution.

[luis.beca@…]

Cc Me!

[ram@…]

assign to maintainer, reporter is automatically cc'd

[jmr@…]

Note that the MacPorts version of texlive is based on the OpenBSD version, which has not yet been updated.

[Damien.Pollet@…]

Cc Me!

[tim.lahey@…]

Cc Me!

[vext01@…]

Cc Me!

[vext01@…]

Replying to jmr@…:

Note that the MacPorts version of texlive is based on the OpenBSD version, which has not yet been updated.

Hi,

I am the guy working on this on the OpenBSD side. I am having problems on amd64 at the moment.

I will let you guys know when I have a stable build.

[nathan@…]

Cc Me!

[andrew@…]

Cc Me!

[Damien.Pollet@…]

Any news ? Is the BSD AMD build important for updating the port here ?

[software@…]

Cc Me!

[mcalhoun@…]

Cc Me!

[jasper@…]

Cc Me!

[loshea@…]

Cc Me!

[milosh@…]

preliminary tentative for an update

[milosh@…]

I tried updating the texlive port, but no longer having a mac makes it difficult to test it. With help from some testers, I have eliminated some of the problems, but there are still problems that I don't understand:

• even though the --without-ps2eps switch is put, it seems to try to install ps2eps and conflicts with print/ps2eps
• strangely, texlive_base tries to put some files in /opt/local/texmf and /opt/local/texmf-dist instead of /opt/local/share/{texmf,texmf-dist}
• no more minimal variant (sadly)
• not sure tex works after install
• what about tlmgr?
• is the universal_build working (#17555)

If any beta-tester/portfile developper can help, please do.

[aetherknight@…]

Cc Me!

[vinc17@…]

Cc Me!

[anonymous]

Milestone Port Updates deleted

[patrickrose@…]

Cc Me!

[nbader@…]

Cc Me!

[and.damore@…]

Cc Me!

[earcar@…]

Cc Me!

[earcar@…]

Texlive 2009 is already in prerelease test  http://www.tug.org/texlive/pretest.html

[vext01@…]

yup, and I am working it on it as we speak. You can take the OpenBSD port as a reference after it's done.

[mroman@…]

maybe the port should base on gentoo texlive ebuild?

[milosh@…]

Replying to mroman@…:

maybe the port should base on gentoo texlive ebuild?

My opinion is no. If you are able to do it, do it. Otherwise, I advise to stick with the "easy" solution (keep the current layout, not creating dozens of new ports, trust openbsd's version to honor destroot).

[jbolden1517@…]

CC Me!

[vext01@…]

Just a note to say, I have not forgotten about the 2009 update (for OpenBSD), I am still awaiting an official release.

Thanks

Edd

[mroman@…]

Cc Me!

[earcar@…]

@edd: TeX Live 2009 and MacTeX 2009 have been released. :)

[vext01@…]

Replying to earcar@…:

@edd: TeX Live 2009 and MacTeX 2009 have been released. :)

Yup, I'm working on it at the moment, but the real world keeps getting in the way.

[milosh@…]

texlive 2009

[milosh@…]

I managed to compile texlive 2009 on a powerbook leopard. The attached file tex.tar.bz2 contains the said hierarchy. Notes:

• xz (needed to uncompress) conflicts with lzmautils
• texlive fails to build with macports' icu
• I only tested no_x11 variant

Some CC=gcc in Makefiles trouble me (afraid they will reopen bug #16916) such as texk/web2c/luatexdir/luamd5/Makefile:CC = gcc

Could someone test it and report status for other configurations?

[milosh@…]

Replying to milosh@…:

Mistake in texlive_base/Portfile: --without-ps2eps should be --disable-ps2eps

[raphael@…]

Cc Me!

[raphael@…]

Replying to milosh@…:

Could someone test it and report status for other configurations?

I tested your TeXLive port on a similar configuration (PM G5, Mac OS X 10.5.8) and it compiled fine but pdflatex was unusable. A new version of the portfiles (and a diff from your version) that produces a working pdflatex binary for me is attached.

The problems I solved are as follows:

• pdflatex tried to look for its configuration files in the wrong directory. (Solution: patch for texmf.cnf)
• Some configure arguments were still wrong and the hashes in front of the icu related arguments were passed to configure so that configure ignored all following arguments.
• At least one format file was wrong. (Solution: call fmtutil-sys --all in post activate phase)

I also tried to compile TeXLive with xindy (therefore I added clisp and ffcall dependencies) but I cannot find any binary belonging to xindy in the result.

Comments and further tests are welcome.

[vext01@…]

Hi Guys,

FYI, I posted a patch for OpenBSD today. There is an issue with package updates, which you may not affect you depending upon how macports deals with collisions and upon which order it will update packages.

This is tested on i386, PPC, SGI, ARM and sparc64.

Note that xindy can only run on i386 and amd64 for OpenBSD due to clisp. You may find this does not affect you.

 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-ports&m=125960231528532&w=2

I think it is a good thing that we are sharing code and I would be grateful if you report back to me bugs you may find etc.

Thanks

Edd

[vext01@…]

TeX Live 2009 is now in OpenBSD CVS.

[dports@…]

Cc Me!

[mirimiri66@…]

Cc Me!

[dports@…]

Well, it's 2010 -- about time to have a working TexLive 2009 package, right? ;-)

I'm currently working on this and hope to have some form of a patch soon. Of course, it all depends on how much time I can shake loose in the next week or two, and just how horrible texlive winds up being.

Ideally I am hoping to divide things up into a few more packages than simply texmf-minimal/full like OpenBSD, though that is always a fallback option.

[robink@…]

Cc Me!

[singingwolfboy@…]

Cc Me!

[macsforever2000@…]

Cc reporter of dup #23692.

[dports@…]

Let me say a few words about what I'm working on with the texlive port so that people know what's going on -- looks like there's been a lot of interest in a more recent TeXLive lately.

For background, texlive is a large and lumbering monstrosity. It includes a giant pile of source code (complete with all of its dependent libraries), an even more giant pile of TeX packages, and its own package manager. I believe texlive 2009 is divided into over 3000 packages, which are grouped into about 80 "collections", and further grouped into 10 "schemes".

The version currently in MacPorts is 2007, which IIRC predates TexLive's package management system. So there's a texlive_base port that installs the binaries, a texlive_texmf-full and a texlive_texmf-minimal that install some or all of the tex files, s texlive_texmf-docs port, and a texlive metaport.

This organization doesn't really work for TL 2009, because there's no "minimal" texmf tree anymore and it's not really clear exactly what we'd want to put in a "minimal" install anyway. And I would really rather not support only a full install of texlive, because that's about a gig of distfiles and probably over 2GB installed. Instead, I'd like to provide finer granularity so that users can choose what they want installed.

So my plan is to create the following ports:

• texlive-common, which contains support scripts and files required for building and installing the others (e.g. texmf.cnf)
• texlive-bin, which contains everything built from source (not too different from today's texlive_base)
• one port per texlive collection, e.g. texlive-basic, texlive-latex-recommended, texlive-lang-african

I'm leaning toward one port per collection because I think this is the only option with a decent granularity and a reasonable number of ports. It would wind up creating 80-90 ports, which is a lot, but not totally unreasonable to me. (Note that 30 of these are language-specific packages for 30 languages, and another 24 are documentation in different languages.) This is basically the approach that Debian takes.

The other alternatives are one port per package, which would be great in that you could install exactly the packages you need, but require 3000+ ports, which would be a nightmare. One port per scheme (there are 10 of them) would also be a decent option, except that the schemes overlap, so the ports would conflict. I think one port per collection is the way to go.

I've done a lot of the work necessary for this, including getting the binaries to build and the giant distfile carved up into more manageable collections. I can provide more details if anyone is interested, and I hope to have a patch soon once I get it into reasonably usable shape.

This has been even more of a painful mess than I expected it to be!

[singingwolfboy@…]

Wow, sounds like a lot of work! dports, if you'd like any help, let me know and I'm more than willing to do what I can. Thanks for working on this!

[vext01@…]

The version currently in MacPorts is 2007, which IIRC predates TexLive's package management system. So there's a texlive_base port that installs the binaries, a texlive_texmf-full and a texlive_texmf-minimal that install some or all of the tex files, s texlive_texmf-docs port, and a texlive metaport.

Hi,

I am the OpenBSD TeX Live maintainer, you inherited your original 2007 port from me.

The package manager format did change from 2007 to 2008 from an RDF based format to a text based one. All I had to do was re-write my script which generated the packing lists and I was OK to continue using _base, _texmf-minimal, _texmf-full and _texmf-docs. This is the way I packaged 2008 and 2009 for OpenBSD and it seems to work just fine.

You could probably save yourself some time by stealing my packing lists?

 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/print/texlive/

Perhaps useful, if not, never mind :)

[luis.beca@…]

How would tlmgr work with this TexLive installation? Would it be able to upgrade packages? Or we'll only be able to upgrade with the usual port mechanism? Thanks

[jabronson@…]

Cc Me!

[aslakr@…]

Cc Me!

[dports@…]

Replying to luis.beca@…:

How would tlmgr work with this TexLive installation? Would it be able to upgrade packages? Or we'll only be able to upgrade with the usual port mechanism? Thanks

I don't think this will (or should be) supported -- having two competing package managers trying to upgrade the same package sounds like a recipe for chaos. This is much like how p5-* ports should be used for perl modules rather than CPAN, etc.

It's perhaps conceivable that you could set up a separate texmf tree that uses tlmgr, but I haven't thought about it.

Were you looking for updates more often than yearly? Or finer-granularity packages? Or something else?

[luis.beca@…]

Were you looking for updates more often than yearly? Or finer-granularity packages? Or something else?

I just got used to TeX Live Utility ( http://code.google.com/p/mactlmgr/) which came with the MacTeX distribution and would like to keep using it to stay up to date.