Dear Fedora Experts, bored of the several problems of the texlive 2010 distribution for fedora (see my previous message about the missed hyphenation and the 1-month old broken dependency on the latex binary) I have decides to remove it and reinstall it through tlmgr.
That has been a great idea except for a couple of issues on some *nonrelated" packages. To remove texlive yum forced the remotion of a2ps and R-core (and few other but these are the most important for me) and I can't reinstall them without reinstalling texlive (at least in part).
Now I've already installed texlive but not through yum and I'm wondering why the rpm for these packages not really related to LaTeX and in any case working also without LaTeX can't check for the bins instead of the whole package.
Is there a way for forcing their installation without installing texlive?
Thanks all for the help
Walter
Le lundi 24 janvier 2011 à 13:55 +0100, Walter Cazzola a écrit :
Dear Fedora Experts, bored of the several problems of the texlive 2010 distribution for fedora (see my previous message about the missed hyphenation and the 1-month old broken dependency on the latex binary) I have decides to remove it and reinstall it through tlmgr.
That has been a great idea except for a couple of issues on some *nonrelated" packages. To remove texlive yum forced the remotion of a2ps and R-core (and few other but these are the most important for me) and I can't reinstall them without reinstalling texlive (at least in part).
Now I've already installed texlive but not through yum and I'm wondering why the rpm for these packages not really related to LaTeX and in any case working also without LaTeX can't check for the bins instead of the whole package.
Is there a way for forcing their installation without installing texlive?
Thanks all for the help
Walter
Hi,
a solution could be to build an empty RPM that will simply contain a "Provides: texlive > 2007" or something like this to fool Fedora packages requiring a LaTeX distribution.
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Walter Cazzola cazzola@dico.unimi.it wrote:
That has been a great idea except for a couple of issues on some *nonrelated" packages. To remove texlive yum forced the remotion of a2ps and R-core (and few other but these are the most important for me) and I can't reinstall them without reinstalling texlive (at least in part).
Although it might seem so, but they might not be entirely independent.
Now I've already installed texlive but not through yum and I'm wondering why the rpm for these packages not really related to LaTeX and in any case working also without LaTeX can't check for the bins instead of the whole package.
That is how rpm (or any other package manager works). Checking for binaries can be ambiguous as some package might not place the binaries in the path the package manager might check.
Is there a way for forcing their installation without installing texlive?
If you don't mind the disk space taken by the rpm version of texlive, you can solve the problem with setting your environment variables appropriately. This is how I get around this issue:
###################### # Setup TeXLive 2009 # ######################
function texlive_setup() { export TLHOME=/opt/texlive2009 export PATH=$TLHOME/bin/x86_64-linux:$PATH export MANPATH=$TLHOME/texmf/doc/man:$MANPATH export INFOPATH=$TLHOME/texmf/doc/info:$INFOPATH }
Hope this helps
On 01/24/2011 08:07 AM, suvayu ali wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Walter Cazzolacazzola@dico.unimi.it wrote:
That has been a great idea except for a couple of issues on some *nonrelated" packages. To remove texlive yum forced the remotion of a2ps and R-core (and few other but these are the most important for me) and I can't reinstall them without reinstalling texlive (at least in part).
Although it might seem so, but they might not be entirely independent.
Now I've already installed texlive but not through yum and I'm wondering why the rpm for these packages not really related to LaTeX and in any case working also without LaTeX can't check for the bins instead of the whole package.
That is how rpm (or any other package manager works). Checking for binaries can be ambiguous as some package might not place the binaries in the path the package manager might check.
Is there a way for forcing their installation without installing texlive?
If you don't mind the disk space taken by the rpm version of texlive, you can solve the problem with setting your environment variables appropriately. This is how I get around this issue:
###################### # Setup TeXLive 2009 # ######################
function texlive_setup() { export TLHOME=/opt/texlive2009 export PATH=$TLHOME/bin/x86_64-linux:$PATH export MANPATH=$TLHOME/texmf/doc/man:$MANPATH export INFOPATH=$TLHOME/texmf/doc/info:$INFOPATH }
Hope this helps
Hey Suvayu,
From another post: ****************** BEGIN QUOTE ******************
On 01/23/2011 10:56 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Is it possible to install boost-1.37.0-6.fc11.i586 along side boost-1.41.0-11.fc13.i686 on F13 without hosing up the entire system? I've got a thorny dependency problem that sym-links doesn't fix. Maybe I could install it to a different base directory?
****************** END QUOTE ******************
Could I do something similar with the boost packages?
Mark LaPierre
Hi Mark,
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:07 AM, Mark LaPierre marklapier@aol.com wrote:
Hey Suvayu,
On 01/23/2011 10:56 PM, Mark LaPierre wrote:
Is it possible to install boost-1.37.0-6.fc11.i586 along side boost-1.41.0-11.fc13.i686 on F13 without hosing up the entire system?
Could I do something similar with the boost packages?
I don't think you can do that with boost with just changing environment variables. Installing multiple versions of boost has to be done at the packaging level. With TeXLive its possible because that is how the ctan distribution of TeXLive is designed.
Mark LaPierre
Sorry couldn't be of much help.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Mohamed El Morabity wrote:
Le lundi 24 janvier 2011 à 13:55 +0100, Walter Cazzola a écrit :
a solution could be to build an empty RPM that will simply contain a "Provides: texlive > 2007" or something like this to fool Fedora packages requiring a LaTeX distribution.
Your idea looks interesting but doesn't work. I've just installed (as yum localinstall) the rpm generated by the attached rpm and when I try to install a2ps I get:
Dependencies Resolved
===================================== Package ===================================== Installing: a2ps Installing for dependencies: html2ps kpathsea tex-preview texinfo-tex texlive texlive-dvips texlive-latex texlive-texmf texlive-texmf-dvips texlive-texmf-errata texlive-texmf-errata-dvips texlive-texmf-errata-fonts texlive-texmf-errata-latex texlive-texmf-fonts texlive-texmf-latex texlive-utils
Transaction Summary ===================================== Install 17 Package(s)
Total download size: 61 M Installed size: 159 M Is this ok [y/N]: n
That is not what I desire.
The fake rpm is correctly installed:
yum list installed|grep texlive
texlive2010-fake.noarch 1.0-1.fc13 @/texlive2010-fake-1.0-1.fc13.noarch
Any other suggestion?
Walter
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, suvayu ali wrote:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Walter Cazzola cazzola@dico.unimi.it wrote:
That has been a great idea except for a couple of issues on some *nonrelated" packages. To remove texlive yum forced the remotion of a2ps and R-core (and few other but these are the most important for me) and I can't reinstall them without reinstalling texlive (at least in part).
Although it might seem so, but they might not be entirely independent.
yes I know they use LaTeX to render something but they can work also without LaTeX so if someone want these tools is forced to install LaTeX as well.
Now I've already installed texlive but not through yum and I'm wondering why the rpm for these packages not really related to LaTeX and in any case working also without LaTeX can't check for the bins instead of the whole package.
That is how rpm (or any other package manager works). Checking for binaries can be ambiguous as some package might not place the binaries in the path the package manager might check.
uhm this is not convincing me, to avoid misplaced binaries there are several methods, where, which, the only mandatory point is to have the binaries you are looking for in the PATH that is not such a big issue since I'm supposing you want to use them.
I think this is just an issue of laziness since it is easier to have hard dependencies and let the rpm dbms to deal with them rather than to check real dependencies thoroughly.
Is there a way for forcing their installation without installing texlive?
If you don't mind the disk space taken by the rpm version of texlive, you can solve the problem with setting your environment variables appropriately. This is how I get around this issue:
I know about this possibility but I'd prefer to save 200Mb and to have a cleaner installation.
Thanks for the advice Walter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 25/01/2011 11:46, Walter Cazzola a écrit :
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Mohamed El Morabity wrote:
Le lundi 24 janvier 2011 à 13:55 +0100, Walter Cazzola a écrit :
a solution could be to build an empty RPM that will simply contain a "Provides: texlive > 2007" or something like this to fool Fedora packages requiring a LaTeX distribution.
Your idea looks interesting but doesn't work. I've just installed (as yum localinstall) the rpm generated by the attached rpm and when I try to install a2ps I get:
Dependencies Resolved
Any other suggestion?
Get the rpm package of a2ps and install it with
rpm -ivh a2ps.xxx.rpm --nodeps
And see if a2ps works.
BTW why do you want a2ps it is quite obsolete now for it is unable to handle utf-8 encodage.
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Université Paris Descartes Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, François Patte wrote:
Get the rpm package of a2ps and install it with
rpm -ivh a2ps.xxx.rpm --nodeps
And see if a2ps works.
uhm, this is a solution but I don't like it for 2 reasons:
- in this way I lose the automatic update that yum grants me - a2ps is just one of the packages affected by this problem to cite a few: R-core, html2ps, texinfo-tex, pidgin-latex ...
So I'd prefer to find a way to fool yum instead
BTW why do you want a2ps it is quite obsolete now for it is unable to handle utf-8 encodage.
I'm a long time user of a2ps and I've several scripts that uses it and it is too much work to port them towards a new tool (which one?) especially considering that they was still working with texlive non native installed.
Walter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Le 25/01/2011 16:25, Walter Cazzola a écrit :
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, François Patte wrote:
BTW why do you want a2ps it is quite obsolete now for it is unable to handle utf-8 encodage.
I'm a long time user of a2ps and I've several scripts that uses it and it is too much work to port them towards a new tool (which one?)
There is a u2ps but it is a tar.gz that you have to compile yourself.... Maybe you can make a rpm and "yum install" it?
F.
- -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte
Dear Fedora Experts, after a little work-out and a big help from people in comp.text.te and others on this group I solved the issue and wrote down a rpm spec for a fake texlive rpm that fools the yum system.
Since I think this is can help someone else I'll attach to this message the .spec file that you can use to recreate the fake rpm. To do this you need the rpmdevtools installed and do the following:
1. rpmdev-setuptree (as a normal user) to create the necessary ~/rpmbuild tree 2. rpmbuild -bb --clean texlive2010-fake.spec to create the rpm file 3. yum install --nogpgcheck texlive2010-fake-1.0-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm to really install the rpm
From this point on you can install all the packages you need without
worrying about satisfying the tex dependencies.
I HTH
Walter
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, Walter Cazzola wrote:
Dear Fedora Experts, bored of the several problems of the texlive 2010 distribution for fedora (see my previous message about the missed hyphenation and the 1-month old broken dependency on the latex binary) I have decides to remove it and reinstall it through tlmgr.
That has been a great idea except for a couple of issues on some *nonrelated" packages. To remove texlive yum forced the remotion of a2ps and R-core (and few other but these are the most important for me) and I can't reinstall them without reinstalling texlive (at least in part).
Now I've already installed texlive but not through yum and I'm wondering why the rpm for these packages not really related to LaTeX and in any case working also without LaTeX can't check for the bins instead of the whole package.
Is there a way for forcing their installation without installing texlive?
Thanks all for the help
Walter
--
On 04/06/2011 12:39 PM, Walter Cazzola wrote:
Dear Fedora Experts, after a little work-out and a big help from people in comp.text.te and others on this group I solved the issue and wrote down a rpm spec for a fake texlive rpm that fools the yum system.
Since I think this is can help someone else I'll attach to this message the .spec file that you can use to recreate the fake rpm. To do this you need the rpmdevtools installed and do the following:
...
From this point on you can install all the packages you need without
worrying about satisfying the tex dependencies.
I am one of the someone who it will help - fedora TexLive has historically lagged so much as to be a problem ..
So thank you !! I will test this as soon as I can ...
Will this allow me to use the fedora install of R (which is very helpful) instead of my own install ? (I've been installing R and texmaker outside of fedora repos).
thanks again for doing this ...
I wonder if the official TexLive download would include your spec file ?
gene/
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:39:00 +0200 (CEST) Walter Cazzola cazzola@dico.unimi.it wrote:
Dear Fedora Experts, after a little work-out and a big help from people in comp.text.te and others on this group I solved the issue and wrote down a rpm spec for a fake texlive rpm that fools the yum system.
Since I think this is can help someone else I'll attach to this message the .spec file that you can use to recreate the fake rpm. To do this you need the rpmdevtools installed and do the following:
In case you're not aware, TexLive 2010 and 2011 have been packaged for Fedora. Packages for current Fedoras (13, 14 and 15), for the instructions see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TeXLive#How_To_Test
On 04/06/2011 01:14 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 04/06/2011 12:39 PM, Walter Cazzola wrote:
Dear Fedora Experts, after a little work-out and a big help from people in comp.text.te and others on this group I solved the issue and wrote down a rpm spec for a
Tried to build have a problem: -------------------------------------------- % rpmbuild -bb --clean texlive2010-fake.spec Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iDRmSH + umask 022
...
+ unset DISPLAY + $'\r' : command not foundRmSH: line 30: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iDRmSH (%prep) --------------------------------------------
The last 4 lines of /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iDRmSH contain (noe the Ctrl-M's) in last 2 lines:
export LANG unset DISPLAY ^M ^M
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:39:00 +0200 (CEST) Walter Cazzola cazzola@dico.unimi.it wrote:
Dear Fedora Experts, after a little work-out and a big help from people in comp.text.te and others on this group I solved the issue and wrote down a rpm spec for a fake texlive rpm that fools the yum system.
Since I think this is can help someone else I'll attach to this message the .spec file that you can use to recreate the fake rpm. To do this you need the rpmdevtools installed and do the following:
In case you're not aware, TexLive 2010 and 2011 have been packaged for Fedora. Packages for current Fedoras (13, 14 and 15), for the instructions see
this is exactly the problem, such packages are incomplete (e.g., italian hyphenation is missing and without tlmgr is really hard to reintroduce it) and their updating is really slow wrt the native distribution of texlive. So after a couple of months with several problems with such packages (look at the ml archive for the long story) I dropped the fedora packages of texlive in favor of the native installation. Unfortunately some bad written packages (such as R) rely on the presence of a tex-based rpm this is what my hack solves.
Walter --
uhm, this sounds really strange since it is complaining on a rm statement and I suppose you have rm in your system.
In my view two things could be wrong: 1. I'm using tcsh as a shell and maybe something differ when you use bash 2. did you install the rpmdevtools and prepared the rpmbuild directory?
Walter
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 04/06/2011 01:14 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 04/06/2011 12:39 PM, Walter Cazzola wrote:
Dear Fedora Experts, after a little work-out and a big help from people in comp.text.te and others on this group I solved the issue and wrote down a rpm spec for a
Tried to build have a problem:
% rpmbuild -bb --clean texlive2010-fake.spec Executing(%prep): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iDRmSH
- umask 022
...
- unset DISPLAY
- $'\r'
: command not foundRmSH: line 30: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iDRmSH (%prep)
The last 4 lines of /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iDRmSH contain (noe the Ctrl-M's) in last 2 lines:
export LANG unset DISPLAY ^M ^M
On 04/06/2011 03:56 PM, Walter Cazzola wrote:
uhm, this sounds really strange since it is complaining on a rm statement and I suppose you have rm in your system.
In my view two things could be wrong:
- I'm using tcsh as a shell and maybe something differ when you use bash
- did you install the rpmdevtools and prepared the rpmbuild directory?
1) Am using bash
2) yes
I think the problem is the Carriage Returns (control-M) - see below:
- $'\r'
It is trying to execute that as a shell command ... it makes no sense.
But I don't know where it comes from ... I think the "$" was supposed to go with the variable "RmSH" but I am not sure - instead it got attached to the carriage return and caused problems ... maybe :-)
...
- unset DISPLAY
- $'\r'
: command not foundRmSH: line 30: error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iDRmSH (%prep)
The last 4 lines of /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.iDRmSH contain (noe the Ctrl-M's) in last 2 lines:
export LANG unset DISPLAY ^M ^M
On Wednesday 06 April 2011 20:49:20 Walter Cazzola wrote:
Unfortunately some bad written packages (such as R) rely on the presence of a tex-based rpm this is what my hack solves.
The packages are well written, since they depend on latex the rpm package should require the equivalent rpm package, that is the basic principle for distribution.
Imagine to install some package and have to get by hand all its dependencies... In this case latex is a hard requirement (not even optional) for R so the R package should depend on it or else it would a package error.
There is a fedora-texlive mailing list where these issues are discussed.
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 04/06/2011 03:56 PM, Walter Cazzola wrote:
uhm, this sounds really strange since it is complaining on a rm statement and I suppose you have rm in your system.
In my view two things could be wrong:
- I'm using tcsh as a shell and maybe something differ when you use bash
- did you install the rpmdevtools and prepared the rpmbuild directory?
Am using bash
yes
I think the problem is the Carriage Returns (control-M) - see below:
- $'\r'
It is trying to execute that as a shell command ... it makes no sense.
But I don't know where it comes from ... I think the "$" was supposed to go with the variable "RmSH" but I am not sure - instead it got attached to the carriage return and caused problems ... maybe :-)
try to run tcsh before the rpmbuild command, I don't have any clue on this, sorry. In the case I can pass you the rpm for your architecture if you need it.
Walter --
-
François Patte -
Genes MailLists -
José Matos -
Mark LaPierre -
Mohamed El Morabity -
Susi Lehtola -
Suvayu Ali -
Walter Cazzola