Package Details: texlive-installer 2021-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: texlive-installer
Description: This packages provides the installer of texlive. It also tricks Arch into thinking it has its texlive packages installed.
Upstream URL:
Licenses: GPL
Provides: texlive-bibtexextra, texlive-bin, texlive-core, texlive-fontsextra, texlive-formatsextra=2021, texlive-formatsextra, texlive-games, texlive-htmlxml, texlive-humanities, texlive-langchinese, texlive-langcyrillic, texlive-langextra, texlive-langgreek, texlive-langjapanese, texlive-langkorean, texlive-latexextra, texlive-music, texlive-pictures, texlive-pstricks, texlive-publishers, texlive-science
Submitter: zhou13
Maintainer: zhou13
Last Packager: zhou13
Votes: 11
Popularity: 0.22
First Submitted: 2018-06-09 23:11
Last Updated: 2021-04-08 16:57

Dependencies (2)

Required by (654)

Sources (1)

Latest Comments

1 2 Next › Last »

gothicVI commented on 2021-04-08 16:46

Are there plans to update this package to the 2021 release?

zhou13 commented on 2020-06-16 20:58

@alex_culliere The texlive version of dvisvgm is 2.9.1 now.

$ /usr/local/texlive/2020/bin/x86_64-linux/dvisvgm -V
dvisvgm 2.9.1

alex_culliere commented on 2020-03-03 15:47

Sorry, it's my first time reporting an issue for an AUR package. Let me clarify: Current installation comes with both Ghostscript v9.50 and dvisvgm v2.6.3, but they're incompatible. dvisvgm is still usable, but since it's lacking PostScript support due to Ghostscript being too new, to a very limited degree. I tried manually upgrading dvisvgm to 2.8 by building it from sources, which supports latests Ghostscript, but it didn't work as I don't have much experience with it.

Please let me know if I'm reporting this in the wrong place, or is there a way to customize the installation either with upgraded dvisvgm package or an older version of Ghostscript. Thanks in advance and thank you for maintaining this!

vorbote commented on 2020-03-02 19:54

alex_culliere: Huh!?

alex_culliere commented on 2020-03-02 13:29

Hi, vorbote Current distribution of dvisvgm is broken due to incorrect dependency on Ghostscript.

$ dvisvgm -V1                                                                
dvisvgm 2.6.3
brotli:      1.0.7
clipper:     6.2.1
fontforge:   20160721
freetype:    2.9.1
Ghostscript: 9.50
kpathsea:    6.3.1
potrace:     1.15
xxhash:      0.6.5
zlib:        1.2.11

dvisvgm got the support of Ghostscipt v9.50 only since version 2.8 ( 25 October 2019)

zhou13 commented on 2019-12-21 04:54

Hi vorbote, Could you elaborate what conflict you have and which package causes you trouble with "texlive-formatsextra=2019"?

I still remember the first time when I try to install emacs-git with AUR helpers, so I probably won't support optional flags (I need to fork emacs26-git in order to install it with yay at that time). I am pretty sure texlive-htmlxml is necessary, otherwise, community/dblatex will complain, even it is provided by texlive-formatsextra.

vorbote commented on 2019-12-14 13:08

My apologies for getting back to you so late, I forgot to enable notifications.

Yes, I had some conflicts with the installed tools and the texlive upstream. Perhaps you could use an optional flag in your PKGBUILD? Take a look at emacs-git, that I maintain. Don't take it as an example, I went overboard.

BTW, texlive-formatsextra=2019 doesn't work as the version string is incomplete, make it <= or >= and it works. Also, texlive-htmlxml is provided by texlive-formatsextra and thus is a duplicate.

zhou13 commented on 2019-11-29 05:05

Hi vorbote, I am not sure if this is a good idea. Some people might still want to use the tools from the official repository while having the texlive-installer installed. Have you encounterred any messy problems?

vorbote commented on 2019-11-27 20:04

Hi, would you mind adding

replaces=('texlive-bin' 'texlive-htmlxml' 'texlive-formatsextra=2019' $(pacman -Sgq texlive-most texlive-lang))

else, it becomes very messy if you already have installed texlive from extra.

haawda commented on 2018-11-18 04:30

I think you should remove the "conflicts" line. The "provides" line is enough to fulfill the purpose to fake about the existence of the official packages.