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