gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.texlive

Re: I need to install the package 'cjwplain' on Fedora 17

Bob Tennent — 2013-05-28T12:31:47

 >|I need to compile old books typeset using Plain Tex. But I need to compile
 >|them using LaTeX instead of TeX because I need to process them using the
 >|package {preview}.
 >|
 >|I have found out about a package that makes the promise of working the
 >|wonder of doing so without the need to extensively edit the original TeX
 >|files. Yeah!
 >|
 >|This package is called *cjwplain*. However, I am having a hard time
 >|finding
 >|the correct install package for my Fedora TeXLive distribution.

The package is at CTAN:

http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/cjw

It's no longer in TeXLive because of the non-commercial license.

Bob T.

I need to install the package 'cjwplain' onFedora 17

Pere-Andreu Ubach — 2013-05-28T11:38:37

I need to compile old books typeset using Plain Tex. But I need to compile
them using LaTeX instead of TeX because I need to process them using the
package {preview}.

I have found out about a package that makes the promise of working the
wonder of doing so without the need to extensively edit the original TeX
files. Yeah!

This package is called *cjwplain*. However, I am having a hard time finding
the correct install package for my Fedora TeXLive distribution.

I installed the official TeXLive repository for my Fedora 17 distribution
in order to have a consistent LaTeX system. but for some reason the package
*cjwplain* is not located where it should. And I cannot find it anywhere
else in the Fedora repository. Is there anything I am missing?

Supposedly, the package should be bundled with: *
texlive-texmf-latex-2007-41.fc17.noarch.rpm* but this file has been
obsoleted by *texlive-2012-19.20130317_r29408.fc17.x86_64* wich is already
installed in my system. But *cjwplain* is not present.

Maybe I should ask t

Re: 2012 fc17 repository missing?

Peter Baker — 2013-03-08T03:50:22

Thanks Roger!

I think thats good advice and fedup worked nicely on my personal laptop which was already at F17. 

I'll bite the bullet and upgrade to F18. (which is why I upgraded to F17 anyway) once I go through the pre upgrade steps

Cheers
Peter



________________________________
 From: Roger Griffiths <griffiths.roger-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
To: texlive< at >linux.cz 
Sent: Friday, 8 March 2013 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Fedora TeX Live] 2012 fc17 repository missing?
 

Peter,

I decided not to wait for the texlive to reappear in 
http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/texlive/2012/packages.fc17/

Since Fedora accepted texlive into the stable branch of 18, I bit the bullet and ran 'fedup' to upgrade.
I set the texlive-release.repo   to:
enabled=0
before I upgraded. Anyhow, many texlive/17 packages remained after the upgrade to FC18. So for example you could not upgrade certain packages due to dependencies across both repositories (the OLD: texlive/17 and the NEW: FC18/updates).  So, I decided to clean

Re: 2012 fc17 repository missing?

Roger Griffiths — 2013-03-07T22:19:19

Peter,

I decided not to wait for the texlive to reappear in 
http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/texlive/2012/packages.fc17/

Since Fedora accepted texlive into the stable branch of 18, I bit the
bullet and ran 'fedup' to upgrade.
I set the texlive-release.repo   to:
enabled=0
before I upgraded. Anyhow, many texlive/17 packages remained after the
upgrade to FC18. So for example you could not upgrade certain packages
due to dependencies across both repositories (the OLD: texlive/17 and
the NEW: FC18/updates).  So, I decided to clean house and remove all of
the packages 'tex-*' since all of those where in the texlive/17
repository. A smart person could probably tell me the correct way to do
that (I used duck tape an bailing wire at the prompt:  

$ rpm -qa| grep '^tex-*' > installed_Tex_packages_F17.txt

     followed by (sudo or as root):
# yum remove $(cat installed_Tex_packages_F17.txt)

%%  this took awhile, but got rid of all of the old packages + many
dependencies in the now current FC18/updates repository.

Re: 2012 fc17 repository missing?

Peter Baker — 2013-03-06T07:57:32

Hi all 


I second the vote of  thanks for the massive effort that Jindrich. and others have put in!

I am also keen to know where tex2012 has gone as I just started updating my work laptop from F16 to F18 via F17 which is a slight nightmare. I suspect it would be even if texlive was located where it was a few days ago but I would feel more confident if I knew where it has been migrated 


Thanks!

Cheers
Peter

 
___________________________________________________________
Peter Baker                           dr_pete_baker-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org.au

________________________________



________________________________
 From: Roger Griffiths <griffiths.roger-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
To: texlive <texlive-nB7u6OMypG4< at >public.gmane.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, 6 March 2013 5:12 AM
Subject: [Fedora TeX Live]  2012 fc17 repository missing?
 

I suppose this question is really for Jindrich.

The repository normally at:

http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/texlive/2012/packages.fc1

2012 fc17 repository missing?

Roger Griffiths — 2013-03-05T19:12:15

I suppose this question is really for Jindrich.

The repository normally at:

http://jnovy.fedorapeople.org/texlive/2012/packages.fc17/

Does not appear to be there. I believe FC18 has accepted texlive 2012 as
stable. 
However is the missing 2012 directory a temporary measure, or where
should we look for texlive 2012 packages for fc17?

Thanks in advance. And Jindrich thank you very much for all of your hard
work in this huge migration.

-Roger Griffiths

Re: Packaging: TeX tree for non-texlive packages

Jindrich Novy — 2013-03-04T07:21:19

Hi Bob,

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 09:03:52AM -0500, Bob Tennent wrote:

as far as I know nothing changed. The TeX related package should still
preferably have the tex- prefix.

Jindrich

Re: Packaging: TeX tree for non-texlive packages

José Matos — 2013-02-26T14:55:04

It seems that we never went the last mile. :-)

While searching the guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

I do not find any reference to (la)tex.

The only guidelines that can be found are those related with the naming:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Addon_Packages_.28TeX.29

Maybe now that a modern texlive is in the repos we should care about
getting the guidelines in shape for submission.

Here clearly Jindrich has a lot to say since most of the packages are
from him. The added benefit would be to have the same rules for (la)tex
packages that are in texlive and those that are outside.

The guidelines would include:
    * what paths and rpm macros to use
    * what virtual provides to add
    * what scripts to run and when (pre/post installation)
    * ...

I hope that this sounds as a plan, as it would be really nice to get
this into place.

Regards,

Re: texlive-newtx should depend on texlive-boondox (in F18)

Bob Tennent — 2013-02-25T23:40:21

 >|>  >|It needs zxxrl7z.  (Is this the right forum for this?  I have no idea
 >|>  >|how to find the raw texlive metadata.)
 >|>
 >|> Contact the newtx developer: Michael Sharpe at msharpe-XkckGZ689+fhvxM+mQhndA< at >public.gmane.org
 >|
 >|Will do.  How did you find his email address?  

It's at the end of the newtx README.

Bob T.

Re: texlive-newtx should depend on texlive-boondox (in F18)

Andrew Lutomirski — 2013-02-25T23:22:38

I think this may be a Fedora texlive (tl2rpm) deficiency.  The
dependency is present in ntxmia.vf; I'm not sure how else it's
supposed to be encoded.

--Andy

Re: texlive-newtx should depend on texlive-boondox (in F18)

Andrew Lutomirski — 2013-02-25T22:16:49

Will do.  How did you find his email address?  I still haven't figured
out how to find meaningful metadata from ctan.org.

Thanks,
Andy

Re: texlive-newtx should depend on texlive-boondox (in F18)

Bob Tennent — 2013-02-25T21:44:31

 >|It needs zxxrl7z.  (Is this the right forum for this?  I have no idea
 >|how to find the raw texlive metadata.)

Contact the newtx developer: Michael Sharpe at msharpe-XkckGZ689+fhvxM+mQhndA< at >public.gmane.org

Bob T.

texlive-newtx should depend on texlive-boondox(in F18)

Andrew Lutomirski — 2013-02-25T17:15:16

It needs zxxrl7z.  (Is this the right forum for this?  I have no idea
how to find the raw texlive metadata.)

Thanks,
Andy

Re: Packaging: TeX tree for non-texlive packages

Bob Tennent — 2013-02-24T14:03:52

 >|> This question should be asked at Fedora, not at Fedora-TeXLive. My
 >|> answer would be to create /usr/share/texmf and add that tree to the
 >|> TeXLive configuration.
 >|
 >|I think that this list is the right place in the sense that the
 >|discussion here could lead to new guidelines in Fedora. Every major
 >|language in Fedora has a set of mailing lists where the issues are
 >|discussed before being written in the guidelines. IMHO this list fills
 >|the same role for tex related discussion.

What are the current Fedora guidelines for TeX-related packages? The
last time I looked, packages were supposed to be named tex-..., rather
than tetex-... or texlive-...; that seems to have changed.

Bob T.

Re: Packaging: TeX tree for non-texlive packages

José Matos — 2013-02-24T08:48:38

I think that this list is the right place in the sense that the
discussion here could lead to new guidelines in Fedora. Every major
language in Fedora has a set of mailing lists where the issues are
discussed before being written in the guidelines. IMHO this list fills
the same role for tex related discussion.

Regards,

Packaging: TeX tree for non-texlive packages

Bob Tennent — 2013-02-23T21:21:51

 >|Maybe I should have been more explicit: this is about packaging for
 >|fedora. Bibexport fails to build. The question is where *packages*
 >|are supposed to install best files (and how to rehash in post).

This question should be asked at Fedora, not at Fedora-TeXLive. My
answer would be to create /usr/share/texmf and add that tree to the
TeXLive configuration.

Bob T.

Re: Packaging: TeX tree for non-texlive packages

Michael J Gruber — 2013-02-23T20:19:59


Alick Zhao <alick9188-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> schrieb:


Maybe I should have been more explicit: this is about packaging for fedora. Bibexport fails to build. The question is where *packages* are supposed to install best files (and how to rehash in post).

Re: Packaging: TeX tree for non-texlive packages

Alick Zhao — 2013-02-23T15:30:24

I guess TEXMFHOME and TEXMFLOCAL are more appropriate for personal
files. TEXMFHOME defaults to ~/texmf/ and TEXMFLOCAL is /usr/share/
texlive/texmf-local/.

Re: texlive-math-extra: unicode-math requireslmmath-regular.otf

George N. White III — 2013-02-23T01:04:54

I gather the OP is using the F18 rpm packages (so closer to TL2013 than
2012).

$ rpm -qil texlive-lm-math
Name        : texlive-lm-math
Epoch       : 2
Version     : svn28443.1.950
Release     : 16.fc18
Architecture: noarch
Install Date: Sat 16 Feb 2013 08:59:50 AM AST
Group       : Applications/Publishing
Size        : 702876
License     : LPPL
Signature   : RSA/SHA256, Wed 06 Feb 2013 09:49:06 PM AST, Key ID
ff01125cde7f38bd
Source RPM  : texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.src.rpm
Build Date  : Wed 06 Feb 2013 01:20:14 AM AST
Build Host  : buildvm-10.phx2.fedoraproject.org
Relocations : (not relocatable)
Packager    : Fedora Project
Vendor      : Fedora Project
URL         : http://tug.org/texlive/
Summary     : OpenType maths fonts for Latin Modern
Description :
Latin Modern Math is a maths companion for the Latin Modern
family of fonts, in OpenType format. For use with LuaLaTeX or
XeLaTeX, support is available from the unicode-math package.

date: 2012-11-29 15:56:16 +0100
/usr/share/doc/texlive-lm-ma

Re: Packaging: TeX tree for non-texlive packages

José Matos — 2013-02-22T17:11:59

FWIW I have exactly the same issues with dvipost. And I will follow your
footsteps. :-)

Re: texlive-math-extra: unicode-math requireslmmath-regular.otf

Neal Becker — 2013-02-22T14:09:07

IIUC, a workaround is

/home/nbecker/.texlive2012/texmf-var/fonts/truetype/lmmath-regular.otf ->
/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/lm-math/latinmodernmath-regular.otf


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Bob Tennent <rdtennent-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote: