Bug #2776
Housekeeping #2546: [STICKY][poppler]: and friends (x86_64)
[libre/texlive-bin]: rebuild against new poppler (x86_64)
50%
History
Updated by bill-auger almost 4 years ago
- Subject changed from [texlive-bin]: rebuild against new poppler (x86_64) to [libre/texlive-bin]: rebuild against new poppler (x86_64)
Updated by theova over 2 years ago
It's open again:
$ sudo pacman -Syu
...
warning: cannot resolve "poppler=21.07.0-3", a dependency of "texlive-bin"
:: The following package cannot be upgraded due to unresolvable dependencies:
texlive-bin
As shown in Freedom Issue #2695: Re-evaluate texlive-bin, the difference between Parabola's package and Arch's one is mainly a question of branding.
I doubt that it's worth to maintain this package separably as it has no freedom issue but a huge maintenance workload...
Updated by bill-auger over 2 years ago
- Related to Bug #3075: [cups-filters][texlive-bin]: installing poppler (N) breaks dependency added
Updated by bill-auger over 2 years ago
- Related to deleted (Bug #3075: [cups-filters][texlive-bin]: installing poppler (N) breaks dependency)
Updated by theova over 2 years ago
theova wrote:
It's open again:
[...]As shown in Freedom Issue #2695: Re-evaluate texlive-bin, the difference between Parabola's package and Arch's one is mainly a question of branding.
I doubt that it's worth to maintain this package separably as it has no freedom issue but a huge maintenance workload...
Are there any updates/thoughts on this proposal?
Updated by bill-auger over 2 years ago
#2695 was closed, which indicates that no further discussion is necessary - i just added a note/question to it though - i do agree with your reasoning
Updated by bill-auger over 2 years ago
- % Done changed from 0 to 50
the 'texlive-bin' arch package no longer depends on poppler and no longer passes --with-system-poppler to ./configure
we generally try to avoid that, but to prefer system libs, if possible; but as an experiment, this current package follows arch WRT poppler - maybe it is a good solution, for maintaining such pesky software as texlive
ive never known how to test this confidently - i have a small test input file and a found command; but it always showed error, despite producing a valid output file
$ cat test.tex
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
dfvlkmdfv\end{document}
$ pdf2ps test.tex
Error: /undefined in \documentclass
Operand stack:
Execution stack:
%interp_exit .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- false 1 %stopped_push 1990 1 3 %oparray_pop 1989 1 3 %oparray_pop 1977 1 3 %oparray_pop 1833 1 3 %oparray_pop --nostringval-- %errorexec_pop .runexec2 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 2 %stopped_push --nostringval--
Dictionary stack:
--dict:763/1123(ro)(G)-- --dict:0/20(G)-- --dict:75/200(L)--
Current allocation mode is local
Current file position is 14
GPL Ghostscript 9.55.0: Unrecoverable error, exit code 1
$ file test.tex.ps
test.tex.ps: PostScript document text conforming DSC level 3.0, Level 2
could anyone provide a better example command and/or test input?
Updated by theova over 2 years ago
could anyone provide a better example command and/or test input?
Your test.tex is fine. However, I would use the command
$ pdflatex test.tex
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.141592653-2.6-1.40.22 (TeX Live 2021/Parabola GNU/Linux-libre) (preloaded format=pdflatex)
restricted \write18 enabled.
entering extended mode
(./test.tex
LaTeX2e <2020-02-02> patch level 5
L3 programming layer <2020-06-03>
(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
Document Class: article 2019/12/20 v1.4l Standard LaTeX document class
(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size10.clo))
(/usr/share/texmf-dist/tex/latex/l3backend/l3backend-pdfmode.def) (./test.aux)
[1{/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map}] (./test.aux) )</usr/shar
e/texmf-dist/fonts/type1/public/amsfonts/cm/cmr10.pfb>
Output written on test.pdf (1 page, 11768 bytes).
Transcript written on test.log.
And you indeed test the correct package:
$ pkgfile pdflatex libre/texlive-bin
Updated by bill-auger over 2 years ago
ok thanks - i may have simply guessed which binary might process that file - its good to get this knowledge documented
Updated by theova about 2 years ago
I think texlive-bin needs another rebuild:
$ xelatex test.tex
xelatex: error while loading shared libraries: libicuuc.so.70: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory
Downloading the latest texlive-bin from Arch/Extra resolves this issue.
Updated by bill-auger almost 2 years ago
i should add that texlive-bin has not used the system poppler since about a year ago - the latest rebuild was for the new 'icu' - there is an analogous 'sticky' ticket for that https://labs.parabola.nu/issues/2746
this ticket and the 'sticky' epic for poppler could probably be closed permanently - OTOH, we prefer to use system libs whenever possible - i just havent decided to restore that or not - texlive-bin must be rebuilt each time either poppler or icu is upgraded; which is fairly often - there is discussion of whether we need blacklist replacements for any of texlive; so it is still an open question