Hi,
after the latest update I get this problem with an unresolved upgrade
path:
# yum update texlive*
Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package texlive-collection-humanities.noarch 0:20
On Friday 08 April 2011 14:48:16 Jindrich Novy wrote:
>
> Fixed. It was caused by the fact that upstream uses version ".91" of
> this package and rpmbuild doesn't apparently like release like:
>
> Release: %{tl_noarch_release}..91.svn21751%{?dist}
>
> The same applied for lshort-persian-doc whic
On Thursday 21 April 2011 05:24:33 Peter Baker wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I'm running texlive2011/dev on f14 which until recentlyu has worked
> perfectly
>
>
> cd /usr/share/texlive/texmf-var/web2c/pdftex/
> mv updmap.cfg.rpmnew updmap.cfg
> mv fmtutil.cnf.rpmnew fmtutil.cnf
>
>
> as I noticed the rp
On Wednesday 27 April 2011 07:23:58 Peter Baker wrote:
> Instead I removed texlive2011/dev and all packages depending on it. After
> (re)installing everything I now have a workable system again. Because its a
> work machine I really can't afford the downtime and I'm happy with
> texlive 2010
I
work around the problem
You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
.
I have noticed that some of the packages in the repository have .fc17
suffixes, is that on purpose? I imagine that for now f16 and rawhide are
close so this should not be of any practical consequence.
Regards,
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
l those
installers after installation. IMHO this one area where linux excels
when compared with the other alternatives.
My 2 ¢ (euro cents).
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
On 11/11/2011 01:03 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> texlive 2010 repo for f16?
texlive 2011 is now considered stable and that is available for f16 (and
others).
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listi
n be applied to texlive-2007 in 2012. :-D
I know the amazing work done by Jindrich to have texlive in shape and
according to Fedora guidelines, so what is the extra mile that needs to
be crossed to have texlive-2011 in F-17?
Regards,
--
José Matos
___
TeXLi
rebuilt for later version unless there are major changes
(like the rpm format itself, or the directory layout changed, things
that fortunately do not happen frequently).
I hope this helps,
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.
o read:
Requires: tex(latex)
Regarding the bug report PyX really needs latex as a dependency. The
INSTALL file has:
"Prerequisites
-
PyX requires Python 2.3 or newer and a TeX installation (including Type1
fonts)."
PS: FWIW I forgot to update PyX to 0.11 (oops :-( ). I will d
Now that F-17 is near Beta release are there any plans for a repo for
F-17? And then would it be texlive-2011 or 2012?
Regards,
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
this case is that there is not any analogue for xetex.
I don't remember if this has been discussed here before and I apologize
if that is the case.
Regards,
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/lis
's the reason for many
> problems reported recently.
>
> Johannes
tex(latex) is not provided in texlive-2012 packages, since several
packages in fedora require it the upgrade fails...
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@
Live
Works here (inside yum shell):
> install "tex(wrapfig.sty)"
Package texlive-wrapfig-2011-8.3.6.svn22048.noarch already installed and
latest version
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
so we get a dead end.
Regards,
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
On 07/18/2012 03:20 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> Hey,
>
> 2012/7/18 José Matos :
>> Could your repeat that after
>>
>> # yum clean metadata
> It's working better now, though there were still a few packages
> failing after running yum install texlive. When
faster
than removing everything and installing it back.
Regards,
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
On 07/20/2012 01:43 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> I didn't wind up trying this, but would yum distro-sync do it?
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:02 PM, José Matos <mailto:jama...@fc.up.pt>> wrote:
>
> On 07/19/2012 02:16 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> > And remove th
shows it again:
$ kpsewhere preview.sty
/usr/share/texlive/../texmf-local/tex/latex/preview/preview.sty
Jindrich is this diagnostic right and if so could you fix it allowing the tex
packages in fedora to work with texlive-2012.
Thanks and regards, :-)
--
José Matos
___
> TeXLive@linux.cz
> http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
FWIW I have exactly the same issues with dvipost. And I will follow your
footsteps. :-)
--
José Matos
___
TeXLive mailing list
TeXLive@linux.cz
http://www.linux.cz/mailman/listinfo/texlive
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,
at 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,
--
José Ma
23 matches
Mail list logo
