Integrating vanilla TeX Live 2021 with Debian
ud.usenetcorrespondence at web.de
ud.usenetcorrespondence at web.de
Sun Jul 25 23:52:01 CEST 2021
I am planning to integrate a full installation of Vanilla TeX Live 2021 with my
Debian platform.
On the website of the TeX Users Group I read the instructions for integrating
vanilla TeX Live with Debian - <https://www.tug.org/texlive/debian.html#vanilla>.
Item 2 of these instructions says:
| Ensure that the only Debian TeX Live packages installed are
| tex-common, texinfo, and perhaps lmodern
This instruction indicates that -- when installing vanilla TeX Live via
install-tl -- a subset of Debian-packages needs to be removed from the Debian
installation if present, namely those Debian-packages that make up the set of
Debian TeX Live packages but do not belong to the package-set {tex-common,
texinfo, lmodern}.
The crucial question with this instruction is:
Question 1: How can I find out with a Debian-distribution which
Debian-packages make up the set of Debian TeX Live packages?
Item 4 of these instructions is about creating a dummy-package for "telling"
Debian's package-management about the packages provided due to installing
vanilla TeX Live.
There is a link to a file debian-equivs-2021-ex.txt --
<https://www.tug.org/texlive/files/debian-equivs-2021-ex.txt>.
The purpose of this file is to provide the content of the control-file by
means of which the equivs-tool creates the package file/the
"dummy"-.deb-file which in turn can be installed via dpkg.
Despite the actual purpose of the file debian-equivs-2021-ex.txt, in that file
you find the list of packages provided by the vanilla TeX Live 2021
installation.
Question 2: Is it sufficient to check one's Debian installation for the packages
mentioned in that list being installed and - if so - having them
removed? (This seems not sufficient in case with Debian's own
TeX-Live packaging packages being named differently. But I don't know
if this is the case.)
Question 3: What am I supposed to do regarding dummy-packages in case I wish to
have several releases of vanilla TeX Live installed in parallel,
e.g., 2020 and 2021? With each of them the corresponding
dummy-package linked at <https://www.tug.org/texlive/debian.html#vanilla>
provides the same set of packages, only the Version differs.
The mentioned file debian-equivs-2021-ex.txt looks like this:
----------snip------------------------------------------------------------------
Section: misc
Priority: optional
Standards-Version: 4.1.4
Package: texlive-local
Version: 2021.99999999-1
Maintainer: you <you at yourdomain.example.org>
Provides: chktex, biblatex, biblatex-dw, cm-super, cm-super-minimal, context,
dvidvi, dvipng, feynmf, fragmaster, jadetex, lacheck, latex-beamer,
latex-cjk-all, latex-cjk-chinese, latex-cjk-chinese-arphic-bkai00mp,
latex-cjk-chinese-arphic-bsmi00lp, latex-cjk-chinese-arphic-gbsn00lp,
latex-cjk-chinese-arphic-gkai00mp, latex-cjk-common, latex-cjk-japanese,
latex-cjk-japanese-wadalab, latex-cjk-korean, latex-cjk-thai, latexdiff,
latexmk, latex-sanskrit, latex-xcolor, lcdf-typetools, lmodern, luatex,
musixtex, passivetex, pgf, preview-latex-style, prosper, ps2eps, psutils,
purifyeps, t1utils, tex4ht, tex4ht-common, tex-gyre, texlive, texlive-base,
texlive-bibtex-extra, texlive-binaries, texlive-common, texlive-extra-utils,
texlive-fonts-extra, texlive-fonts-extra-doc, texlive-fonts-recommended,
texlive-fonts-recommended-doc, texlive-font-utils, texlive-formats-extra,
texlive-games, texlive-generic-extra, texlive-generic-recommended,
texlive-humanities, texlive-humanities-doc, texlive-lang-african,
texlive-lang-all, texlive-lang-arabic, texlive-lang-cjk, texlive-lang-cyrillic,
texlive-lang-czechslovak, texlive-lang-english, texlive-lang-european,
texlive-lang-japanese, texlive-lang-chinese, texlive-lang-korean,
texlive-lang-french, texlive-lang-german, texlive-lang-greek,
texlive-lang-indic, texlive-lang-italian, texlive-lang-other,
texlive-lang-polish, texlive-lang-portuguese, texlive-lang-spanish,
texlive-latex-base, texlive-latex-base-doc, texlive-latex-extra,
texlive-latex-extra-doc, texlive-latex-recommended,
texlive-latex-recommended-doc, texlive-luatex, texlive-math-extra,
texlive-metapost, texlive-metapost-doc, texlive-music,
texlive-omega, texlive-pictures, texlive-pictures-doc, texlive-plain-extra,
texlive-plain-generic,
texlive-pstricks, texlive-pstricks-doc, texlive-publishers,
texlive-publishers-doc, texlive-science, texlive-science-doc, texlive-xetex,
thailatex, tipa, tipa-doc, xindy, xindy-rules, xmltex, asymptote, texinfo
Depends: freeglut3
Architecture: all
Description: My local installation of TeX Live 2021.
A full "vanilla" TeX Live 2021
https://www.tug.org/texlive/debian#vanilla
----------snap------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4: In the Description-field you find the url:
<http://tug.org/texlive/debian#vanilla>
Shouldn't this be:
<https://www.tug.org/texlive/debian.html#vanilla> ?
(".html" behind "debian" is missing.)
Question 5: The field "Standards-Version: 4.1.4" indicates that the
control file complies to the
Debian Policy Manual 4.1.4.<whatsoever>.
On the web I could only find the more recent
Debian Policy Manual version 4.5.1.0, released on 2020-11-17 --
<https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/index.html>.
Where can I find releases of the Debian Policy Manual prior to
4.5.1.0, especially release 4.1.4 ?
Question 6: Section "5.6.12. Version" of Debian Policy Manual version 4.5.1.0,
<https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#version>
indicates that in the version-field "Version: 2021.99999999-1 "
the string "2021.99999999" denotes the upstream-version (and the
string "-1" denotes the debian-revision).
The debian package-search, <https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=texlive>
reveals that with regular Debian-texlive-packages the
upstream-version, which comes from the developers of texlive, seems
to be of a specific of a specific pattern.
E.g, with Debian-buster (stable) the upstream-version of the
package texlive is "2018.20190227" (and the debian-revision is "2").
What is the pattern of these upstream-version-numbers?
"2018" seems to denote a year. What year?
"20190227" seems to denote a date. What date?
Does "2018" denote TeX Live 2018?
Does "20190227" the date when the repository was synchronized/
rsynced with the TeX-Live-repository on the CTAN-master server for
creating the Debian-package?
Question 7: Why do you find the packages "texinfo" and "lmodern" in the
"Provides"-field although the instructions advise to ensure that
these packages are already installed?
Shouldn't they (together with "tex-common" and "freeglut") be
listed in the "Depends"-field instead?
In item 2 of the above-mentioned instructions you are advised to "ensure that
the only Debian TeX Live packages installed are tex-common, texinfo, and perhaps
lmodern".
Question 8: What is the phrase "perhaps" before "lmodern" intended to indicate?
That one should keep Debian's lmodern-package only in case one
does not integrate the lmodern-fonts coming with the TeX Live
distribution system-wide?
Question 9: Ad ensuring "that the only Debian TeX Live packages installed are
tex-common, texinfo, and perhaps lmodern":
Shouldn't the dummy-package be installed **before** uninstalling
any Debian-packages?
Otherwise Debian packages might be uninstalled as well which do
not belong to Debian TeX Live but do depend on it.
(Probably one could adapt the dummy-package's control file to
remove any already existing Debian TeX Live installation via
"Conflicts:"- and "Replaces:"-directives as described at
<https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html#overwriting-files-and-replacing-packages-replaces>
and then install the dummy-package before running install-tl...,
this way combining the step of ensuring "that the only
Debian TeX Live packages installed are tex-common, texinfo, and
perhaps lmodern" with the step of installing the dummy-package.)
Thank you for taking the time to read my questions.
Sincerely
Ulrich
More information about the tex-live
mailing list.