Opened 15 years ago

Closed 14 years ago

Last modified 14 years ago

#20042 closed defect (fixed)

texlive_base @2007_7 fails to build xdv2pdf, hamstringing xelatex

Reported by: yaseppochi (Stephen J. Turnbull) Owned by: drkp (Dan Ports)
Priority: Normal Milestone:
Component: ports Version: 1.7.1
Keywords: Cc:
Port: texlive_base

Description

This is due to r52085. xdv2pdf simply won't build if have_carbon is no. See texk/xdv2pdf/configure.in.

Change History (6)

comment:1 Changed 15 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)

Port: texlive_base added
Summary: texlive_base 2007@7 fails to build xdv2pdf, hamstringing xelatextexlive_base @2007_7 fails to build xdv2pdf, hamstringing xelatex

comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by tobypeterson

Priority: HighNormal

comment:3 Changed 14 years ago by jmroot (Joshua Root)

Owner: changed from macports-tickets@… to dports@…

is this still a problem with texlive-bin @2009_2?

comment:4 Changed 14 years ago by yaseppochi (Stephen J. Turnbull)

It's hard to be sure because I've got multiple texlive installations, and xdv2pdf is on PATH at least once, but the answer seems to be no. /opt/local/bin/xetex (to which xelatex is a symlink) refers to xdvipdfmx, not to xdv2pdf. I think this was a transitional issue in TeX Live itself, not in MacPorts. I'm pretty sure "modern" TeX Live prefers xdvipdfmx anyway.

There was a minor glitch in the "upgrade -u" however, texlive_base did not get uninstalled "because texlive depends on it", which prevented texlive_texmf-{minimal,full} from uninstalling. With disk sizes these days I guess that's not a major problem, but it's a lot of MB that "upgrade -u" is supposed to help save. This would seem to be a port bug.

comment:5 Changed 14 years ago by drkp (Dan Ports)

Resolution: fixed
Status: newclosed

As far as I understand xetex (I'm not an expert) this isn't a problem anymore. xdv2pdf isn't normally used by xetex anymore.

If you do want xdv2pdf, though, you can get it with the +atsui variant, although you'll then be stuck in 32-bit land.

comment:6 in reply to:  4 Changed 14 years ago by drkp (Dan Ports)

Replying to stephen@…:

There was a minor glitch in the "upgrade -u" however, texlive_base did not get uninstalled "because texlive depends on it", which prevented texlive_texmf-{minimal,full} from uninstalling. With disk sizes these days I guess that's not a major problem, but it's a lot of MB that "upgrade -u" is supposed to help save. This would seem to be a port bug.

I ran into this once too and it does sound like a possible bug in base. Filed a new ticket #25355 about it.

In the meantime, port -f uninstall texlive_base texlive_texmf-minimal texlive_texmf-full should get rid of the old ports (which are not needed for TL 2009)

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.