[arch-dev-public] texlive-bin binary doesn't match PKGBUILD

Firmicus Firmicus at gmx.net
Mon Oct 12 04:08:32 EDT 2009

Jan de Groot wrote:
> Somehow the texlive-bin PKGBUILD doesn't provide the same binary package
> that is in the repository. I just committed a gnome-unstable directory
> with 3 patches that fixes build against poppler 0.12, but building it
> with makechrootpkg results in a lot of missing binaries. Also, I
> couldn't build texlive-bin without adding some force commands to ln and
> rm.

Thanks for reporting this Jan. I'll happily loot into this. But can you
send me some more details first?

Here are the facts from my side:

texlive-bin 2009.4-2 was indeed created with "makepkg -R" on the basis
of the previous build (pkgrel=1) because I only needed to add two
missing symlinks for texlua and texluac (see FS#16486) and did not feel
like rebuilding the whole goddam thing for something as simple as that
(ca. 30 minutes of compilation at full processor last costs a lot of
electricity you know ;) and my fans get real noisy too!)...

So yes, I did fix that by hand: I unpacked the previously built packages
under $pkgdir, created the symlinks, added the corresponding missing
lines in the PKGBUILD, and then repackaged. I can assure you that the
previous build (2009.4-1) was generated from the PKGBUILD then in trunk.
But it was NOT built with makechrootpkg. Sometimes (rarely) makechroot
is not a good idea. I know that building subversion and gvim with
makechroot can yield incorrect packages. In the particular case of
texlive-bin, which is very complex, I need to be in full control and a
chroot environment does not provide this condition. But I am open to
your criticism if you think this is not a good approach ;)

Yet I am nevertheless surprised that texlive-bin does not build well
with makechrootpkg. I certainly does in a normal environment.


More information about the arch-dev-public mailing list