Public SourceMage Discussion List

[flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>]

Ismael Luceno (ismael.luceno AT gmail.com) wrote [11.09.09 10:51]:
> El Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:27:49 +0900
> flux <flux AT sourcemage.org> escribió:
> <...> 
> > I'd rather like to know what texlinks is doing and perhaps we should
> > do that ourselves. If all it's doing is setting up symlinks, why does
> > there need to be an entirely separate binary for this? Why not just
> > ln -s? This seems rather fishy. However, we definitely need to fix
> > the INSTALL to do the right thing. I also have a feeling that this
> > only affects latex/pdflatex (and possibly tex), but I'm not so sure
> > about this. I'm fairly sure, though, that this doesn't affect context
> > (which has it's own wrappers).
> 
> It was affecting ConTeXt on my system. In fact, it affected almost all
> binaries (which I guess were wrappers).
> 
> I've tried a newer version and it looked a lot less broken, so I
> upgraded the spell. It's missing some bits, but a lot better.

What bits is it missing? Depending on what one does/uses, those bits may
be crucial.

I'm starting to think that we should avoid using texlinks during
install, and just set up latex and pdflatex as symlinks to pdftex
ourselves (or set tex itself as a symlink to pdftex, but only after
testing the heck out of doing so as I have a feeling that will break
something). As far as I know, with the way we currently install texlive
the only issue is with latex (which is a pain in the arse anyway), so
special handling for latex only might be the best way to go.

-- 
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgp0Bg9YB5la0.pgp
Description: PGP signature