Ubuntu

[needs-packaging] TeX Live 2011/2012

Reported by Ingo Gerth on 2011-02-03
This bug affects 284 people
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
tex-live
Invalid
Undecided
Unassigned
texlive-base (Debian)
Fix Released
Unknown
texlive-base (Ubuntu)
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

Binary package hint: texlive-base

Natty's, Oneiric's and Precise's repositories still feature TeXLive 2009 only. This package is very outdated and should be updated to more recent version of TeXLive.

Ingo Gerth (igerth) on 2011-02-03
Changed in texlive-base (Ubuntu):
status: New → Confirmed
Brian Murray (brian-murray) wrote :

*** This is an automated message ***

This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist.

Changed in texlive-base (Ubuntu):
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Tarun K. Mall (c2tarun) on 2011-02-04
Changed in texlive-base (Ubuntu):
assignee: nobody → TARUN KUMAR MALL (c2tarun)
Richard Brown (rgbrown) wrote :

Good to see this is happening - the version of TikZ in 2009 is not entirely compatible with the current gnuplot

Tarun K. Mall (c2tarun) on 2011-02-16
Changed in texlive-base (Ubuntu):
assignee: TARUN KUMAR MALL (c2tarun) → nobody
Ingo Gerth (igerth) wrote :

This is bad news! Is there anybody we can address concerning this?

> This is bad news! Is there anybody we can address concerning this?

Yes, me. But I currently don't have the time for rewritting everything for the new release layout. Sorry.

Norbert

tags: added: upgrade-software-version

Bug also affects me, note that Onieric is also still 2009, any news on progress?

Thanks,

J

Daniel Cordeiro (dcordeiro) wrote :

According to [http://www.tug.org/texlive/], TexLive 2011 is expected to be released soon.

Ingo Gerth (igerth) on 2011-07-07
summary: - [Needs packaging] TeXLive 2010
+ [Needs packaging] TeXLive 2011
description: updated

TeX Live 2011 is released.

Catalin Hritcu (catalin-hritcu) wrote :

How about removing the ancient texlive 2009 from Ubuntu, and advising people to install Tex Live 2011 directly from here: http://www.tug.org/texlive/
The completely obsolete version you ship with Ubuntu is much worse than nothing! It forces novices into using buggy versions of TeX packages, although these bugs were fixed years ago. All this "wait 2 years and we'll make a monolithic Tex Live package for you" is just bullshit! Either get your shit together and package things in a reasonable time, or admit that you're not able to keep up with the rate at which Tex Live, and stop confusing everyone with obsolete packages.

One should not that Ubuntu usually follows Debian (I don't know of any Ubuntu-specific work on TL@Linux), and Debian also still has TL2009.

lal lop (lalop-lmao) wrote :

I should point out that, with the package manager tlmgr (new since the 2010 version), there's no real need to group individual TeX Live packages into debian ones, as was done with Live 2009. Instead, the user can maintain a Live package system orthogonal to Ubuntu's.

Having two package managers is not really an issue here, since tlmgr would only install stuff into the texlive folder anyway (look how well it works for people who've manually installed Tex Live 2011). As for apt-get dependency issues, the fact is that most of texlive is essentially a bunch of "addons" to a very few number of essential programs. [Sane] external programs would not be referencing these addons, but only the basic texlive features. Thus, there's no real need for us to manage those addons into a crazy number of debian packages, when tlmgr was designed to manage them in the first place. (Any minor exception is utterly overwhelmed by the negative consequences of all of us being 2 years behind.)

In short, we should just merge the current mess of dependencies into just one - texlive2011 - and be done with it. This can even be done easily (as a dirty hack) by making the texlive2011 package satisfy them all, when really it just gives the installer to the user.

I mention this because it seems that we don't have the time or manpower for the more conservative solution - 2 years on, we have to start considering the alternatives. The current version of Ubuntu's Tex Live is so old that, far from stability being the issue, bugs are. Worst of all, these are not only bugs that should've been fixed, but that also WERE fixed. Ubuntu is losing its grace in this important area.

Hi everyone,

> I should point out that, with the package manager tlmgr (new since the
> 2010 version), there's no real need to group individual TeX Live
> packages into debian ones, as was done with Live 2009. Instead, the
> user can maintain a Live package system orthogonal to Ubuntu's.

Wrong. It seems you have no idea about packaging. This is simpy not possible. I only give a hint: auto building packages needing tex, how should that work?
Or: how to distribute the packages?

And something else, tlmgr is now existing since 2007, I wrote it.

> Having two package managers is not really an issue here, since tlmgr
> would only install stuff into the texlive folder anyway

That is not the point ... maybe you should read the packaging guide for Debian/Ubuntu to get a grasp on what are the problems.

> (look how well
> it works for people who've manually installed Tex Live 2011).

Of course, because they all install texlive full scheme, so everything.

Guess how many complains we (now I am Debian maintainer) get about the size? If I could package all of TL in one package that would be much easier ...

> As for
> apt-get dependency issues, the fact is that most of texlive is
> essentially a bunch of "addons" to a very few number of essential
> programs.

Yes, but how to determine which addons are needed (btw, are you using TeX???)

> [Sane] external programs would not be referencing these
> addons, but only the basic texlive features.

Rubbish rubbish rubbish. Evrry documentation compiled while package building needs several of these addons, some of them hundreds .... arggg

you seem to have no idea what TeX and friends is about!?

> I mention this because it seems that we don't have the time or manpower
> for the more conservative solution

Yes that is true. I have already posted li ks to preliminary 2011 packages where there are still loads of bugs and far from working.

Guess howmany people took a look at them and send me feedback?! 1 (One).

Yes, lack of manpower. So why don't you step forward and contribute?

Enjoy

Norbert
Debian TeX maintainer
TeX Live (upstream) main programmer

lal lop (lalop-lmao) wrote :

@ preining

Perhaps I'm dumb, but:

> Guess how many complains we (now I am Debian maintainer) get about the size? If I could package all of TL in one package that would be much easier ...

This wasn't what I meant. I meant to package just one bit of TL, the installer, into it, and make it pretend to provide all the TL dependencies. This is essentially what we do when we make a manual install anyway.

>you seem to have no idea what TeX and friends is about!?

No, unfortunately I do not.

> And something else, tlmgr is now existing since 2007, I wrote it.

I meant that it was not included until Tex Live 2010... I could be wrong about that also? But thank you for the great program!

> Yes, lack of manpower. So why don't you step forward and contribute?

There is, unfortunately, a simple answer to this. Anyone who is saavy enough to help with the packaging would have already made a manual install (probably with a fake deb pretending to provide all the TL packages). Even a newbie like me is able to do so. My point here is simply: I think the work/itch scratching ratio for the canonical solution may just be too high. You should start to consider radical solutions, like maybe splitting between:

1) "Fake" full installation that would benefit the individual user (it's basically what we do now anyway, and we ought to get rid of the learning curve for any new people).
2) "Real" full installation (if I read right, your job would be much easier if you really could stick it all in one package) for those who need the automatically generated stuff.

lal lop (lalop-lmao) wrote :

@ preining

>Of course, because they all install texlive full scheme, so everything.

Also, I'm not sure if this is related, but full scheme is far from necessary for manual install. In fact, from recent googling, there is even a new script popped up for "installing packages on the fly" while compiling a .tex file ( http://www.latex-community.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15194 )!

What I'm saying is, I think there are good solutions (even manual ones like I was doing previously, though I think I'll use the script from now on) for the individual user involving your tlmgr program rather than deb packaging of individual elements. For large, multiuser installations, it may not be inappropriate to have them install everything. I think this would justify the split between 1) and 2) as I have above, especially if the split means you can get out new releases much faster!

Hi

> This wasn't what I meant. I meant to package just one bit of TL, the
> installer, into it, and make it pretend to provide all the TL
> dependencies.

And, as I wrote in the last email, how would the build structure that automatically install buil dependencies make sure that all the necessary addons for that paticular document would be installed?

That is what I mean, your suggestions sound nice, but only to people without any idea about Debian/Ubuntu packaging, nor TeX.

>> you seem to have no idea what TeX and friends is about!?
>
> No, unfortunately I do not.

Then why you are interested at all, if you don't use it anyway?

>
>> And something else, tlmgr is now existing since 2007, I wrote it.
>
> I meant that it was not included until Tex Live 2010... I could be wrong
> about that also? But thank you for the great program!

No, it was there right from the beginning after the rewrite of the infrastructure, otherwisr network installation would not have been possible.

> There is, unfortunately, a simple answer to this. Anyone who is saavy
> enough to help with the packaging would have already made a manual
> install (probably with a fake deb pretending to provide all the TL
> packages).

Well, the point is, do you want a solution for you, then be happy and stop b****ing around things you don't understand.

If you want to help the community, then
- read the packaging manual
- get acquainted with TeX Live
- follow the debian-tex-maint mailing list
- test the prelim packages and find problems etc

That would already be great. If in addition you could fix the probkems that would be much better.

But by now you are stealing time without giving back anything to the community that provided you with all this nice free stuff.

End of line.

@preining

>how would the build structure that automatically install buil dependencies make sure that all the necessary addons for that paticular document would be installed?

In my thought, the "real" package would be all-texlive (like what you said would be easier for you), replacing the currently hundreds of packages texlive is split into. This completeness ensures build dependencies are satisfied.

The "fake" one would be for the user who just wants to install his own packages with tlmgr/script and doesn't use them as a dependency for any autobuilding. Thus, it would be safe to pretend they've been provided with all-texlive. The point is, this is already what we do with manual install, and it should be available in apt-get without new people having to take an hour figuring out how.

I care because I want new people's job to be easier. And I want your job to be easier. But if consolidating into one package truly isn't an option due to people wanting to autobuild only part of texlive, then I'll shut up now.

Changed in texlive-base (Debian):
status: Unknown → New
sfbi (wonease) wrote :

I kind of fully agree with lal lop. The texlive issue is almost the biggest reason that I never liked ubuntu, though I have to use it at the moment. See the packages in Arch Linux: they manage it quite well. I have to install texlive manually, and to install a fake deb solving the dependency problems.

flix (felix-hess) wrote :

I also want to confirm that it is really bad to install the newest ubuntu to end up with an very outdated version of latex.
Although I have no idea of maintaining packages I also want to vote for a simple way of installing an up-to-date version of latex.

I would like to emphasize upon the importance of this task, I have faced many bugs in TL2009 that have been fixed in TL2011, and I also need tlmgr.

@preining
Could you post the links to the preliminary 2011 packages here too? I would like to try.

> and I also need
> tlmgr.

And I have already said many many times that there will be no tlmgr in the Debian/Ubuntu packages, because there is no need and no place.

If you want daily updates a la tlmgr install upstream TeX Live.

End of line.

Norbert Preining (preining) wrote :

> @preining
> Could you post the links to the preliminary 2011 packages here too? I would like to try.

There was nothing to try becausr they were not installable.

What we need is people with packaging ability and ability to check packages, not dummies trying to get the latest packages.

Anyway I deleted them after 3 or so month of nobodies interest.

When I have time again I will try to continue the packaging.

I resent being called a dummie. I maintain one of the binary tools in texlive.

I am trying to get the latest packages. So are a number of other users. I note that many of the bugs reported on the Ubuntu package are directly related to getting newer versions of packages.

I realize the packagers have little time on their hands. So have I. If you think it is a waste of time to answer the below two questions, then don't. Is this a Debian packaging problem or is it Ubuntu? (For Debian I cannot help at all, in Ubuntu I have a machine but little time, will contribute what I can). Second: Is there a big difference in package generation between 2009 and 2011? (why not just lift the version, no rants please)

Jan-Åke Larsson (jalar) wrote :

I see that you mention a new release layout. How many hours work would you need to spend to finish this?

Hi Jan-Åke,

On So, 16 Okt 2011, Jan-Åke Larsson wrote:
> I resent being called a dummie. I maintain one of the binary tools in
> texlive.

I very much appreciate that you maintain programs related to TeX,
but I stand by my point, first that 90% or more of the people
complaining on Launchpad are dummies searching simply for the
newest versions without an actual need.
Only the point about crying for "tlmgr" is already explanation
enough that these are dummies.
Secondly, what is needed is someone who can help packaging, and there is
loads of work, see below.

> don't. Is this a Debian packaging problem or is it Ubuntu? (For Debian I

That is *the*same*. Ubuntu *IS* Debian with a bit of beautification
added. The TeX packages go one-to-one from Debian to Ubuntu.

> contribute what I can). Second: Is there a big difference in package
> generation between 2009 and 2011? (why not just lift the version, no
> rants please)

Yes. The distribution layout has changed, updmap has been replaced by
a perl script, and since we patch it we need to rewrite the patches
completely.
Several other changes to scripts etc were done, which means loads of
patches have to be rewritten.
THe layout has changed, as there is only a compressed distribution
now, that means the scripts that create the packages have to be rewritten
(done already, but not finished).

> I see that you mention a new release layout. How many hours work would
> you need to spend to finish this?

No idea, 50, maybe 100? With decent testing more.

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLIPOLI (adj.)
Of the behaviour of a bottom lip trying to spit mouthwash after an
injection at the dentist. Hence, loose, floppy, useless. 'She went
suddenly Gallipoli in his arms' - Noel Coward.
   --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

Norbert:
> but I stand by my point, first that 90% or more of the people
> complaining on Launchpad are dummies searching simply for the
> newest versions without an actual need.

That's pretty harsh. Does the desire to remain current with collaborators
using newer TL versions on other platforms make me a dummy? Not sure
about the motivations of the other 124 people on the bug.

On So, 16 Okt 2011, oddhack wrote:
> That's pretty harsh. Does the desire to remain current with collaborators
> using newer TL versions on other platforms make me a dummy? Not sure
> about the motivations of the other 124 people on the bug.

It is about ranting instead of contributing.

Do you actually think I am *NOT* aware of the fact that the
TeX Live versions in Debian (Ubuntu) are outdated?

But how many of the 124 people on this bug report, or for the record,
on *all* the bug reports concerning TeX, have *contributed*?

There are simply a few options:
- do it yourself if you are in great need
- pay someone to do it for you
- wait until someone does it for you

Enjoy.

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHOEBURYNESS (abs.n.) The vague uncomfortable feeling you get when
sitting on a seat which is still warm from somebody else's bottom.
   --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

I needed a tikz keyword that was missing. But I coded around that, and the paper is now finished. So my need is not imminent anymore.

50-100 hrs is a lot. The few messages I found in debian-tex-maint in August on TL2011 seemed to indicate that some work still remains to make the packages hold together. Missing texmf.cnf, yikes! But as you say, there is nothing to test, even. (And for myself, I am hesitant to subscribe to that bugtracking mailinglist)

On Mo, 17 Okt 2011, Jan-Åke Larsson wrote:
> 50-100 hrs is a lot. The few messages I found in debian-tex-maint in
> August on TL2011 seemed to indicate that some work still remains to make
> the packages hold together. Missing texmf.cnf, yikes! But as you say,

Yes,some work is a slight underestimation.

> there is nothing to test, even. (And for myself, I am hesitant to

Right, it is not about testing at the moment.

I always recommend those people who really need it to install
TeX Live upstream as user (disk space is not a problem), and
simply adjust the path.

This is what I am doing, too, and it works without any hickups and problems
whatsoever.

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BURSLEDON
The bluebottle one is too tired to get up and start, but not tired
enough to sleep through.
   --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

I think that from the options Norbert presented I prefer #2: "pay someone to do it for you".

I willing to pledge 30$ to see this fixed ASAP.

Does anyone else want to put their money where their mouth is? We could start a Pledgie campaign for this!?

Just to see if this is realistic or not, maybe Norbert can tell us what would be a good target we should be aiming at :)

Ivo Anjo (knuckles) wrote :

I am also willing to pledge another $30 to help.

Ingo Gerth (igerth) wrote :

As a student, I can afford $10.

sam tygier (samtygier) wrote :

i'd put in some money as well. do you think this could be done through the Tex development fund https://www.tug.org/tc/devfund/ they already have the infrastructure to collect donations and pay developers.

On Sa, 29 Okt 2011, Catalin Hritcu wrote:
> I willing to pledge 30$ to see this fixed ASAP.

The problem is that I don't take money for my work on Debian.
I am volunteer. And I want to be volunteer.

Recently someone stepped forth on the mailing list (debian-tex-maint)
with a serious support offer, that is what is needed.

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
He dropped his voice still lower. In the stillness, a fly
would not have dared cleat its throat.
                 --- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

Isn't there any ppa or other way to get texlive 2011 running on ubuntu? I use it on Windows, and now I get errors on pdflatex in ubuntu, that shouldn't be.

Ingo Gerth (igerth) wrote :

No, that's what this bug is about. You must install it manually.

Just for the record, Norbert is talking about this debian-tex-maint thread:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-tex-maint/2011/11/msg00006.html

So there is new hope :)

Sergio Callegari (callegar) wrote :

I am afraid that TeXLive will always lag in ubuntu.
Repackaging it in debs appears to be simply a too huge effort.

Since texlive already has its own package manager, I suggest creating a minimalistic
texlive-installer deb package that automatizes to some extent the install of a vanilla TeXlive as described in http://tug.org/texlive/debian.html

This should boil down to

1) The package declares to be providing all the stuff in http://tug.org/texlive/files/debian-control-ex.txt
2) The package at install downloads the TexLive installer and runs it, so that the installer downloads a base system from ctan
3) The package at uninstall uses the TeXlive installer to uninstall and verifies that everything is properly cleaned up.

I have created a new bug for this at Bug #905328

Ivo Anjo (knuckles) wrote :

I think having a special package that automatizes the installation of latest texlive would be nice, but it should not replace the normal texlive packages.

Besides, even though some new fixes and package versions would be nice, all of my documents, and I'm guessing most out there, still work with the current version, so we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

It would be a real shame for Ubuntu 12.04 to be stuck with Texlive 2009 for another 5 years! It would be 8 years old by its end of life!

Luca Locatello (lucagl) wrote :

Hi everyone,
 why not installing by using a script (like this http://alexkrispin.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/update-a-script-to-automate-the-installation-of-texlive-2011-on-ubuntu/ ) ?. It isn't so difficult to use and you get TeXlive 2011 right on.

arno_b (arno.b) wrote :

Packages packaged by Ubuntu are officially supported (security update, stability, test, etc.). This is not the case with manual installation that may bring instability.

Luca Citi (knulp79) wrote :

Could TeXlive be split in a core debian package which embeds (physically contains binary code) of the core of TeXlive plus ancillary packages (like it does now, say texlive-publishers) which are meta-packages that call tlmgr in the post-install script, just like the flash-player package just downloads and then installs form adobe website?
The new packages would be much easier to maintain.
The only problem I see is that you need an internet connection (no cd).

sfbi (wonease) wrote :

The current problem is that normal users want the newest texlive (texlive 2009 is too old/buggy for now), and ubuntu maintainers does not want to upgrade it for various reasons which sound like bullshit (see above). Then people starts to discuss how to upgrade by themselves, and then some people jump out to say that this may cause unstability. What is the logic behind? All I can conclude is that Ubuntu is not a good distribution for user experience.

Andrew Kappen (akappen) wrote :

The current Ubuntu documentation/help page includes a disclaimer about the staleness of this package, so anyone looking there for help will be directed to install the latest from http://www.tug.org/texlive/

The documentation page at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LaTeX says:

Note: As of October 2011 the texlive package that ships with Ubuntu (TeX Live 2009) is lagging more than two years behind the current TeX Live release (TeX Live 2011). If you don't have big space constraints and want the latest version of TeX Live, you can install it directly from the TeX Live website (this does not interfere with the packages in Ubuntu).

Does anybody know how to link the TeXlive 2011 files form the official TeXlive website, so that programs like "gummi" oder "TeXmaker" are using TeXlive 2011 instead of being depend on the OLD TeXlive in the Ubuntu repository? I can't find the answer anywhere.

Sorry, I didn't realized that a gummi-notex package is provide. This solves my issue at least for gummi.

Changed in texlive-base (Debian):
status: New → Fix Released
Ingo Gerth (igerth) wrote :

Terrific news! This means it will be fixed for 12.10?

AlfC (alfredo-correa) wrote :

pinch me, did texlive 2011 made it to 12.10?

Ivo Anjo (knuckles) wrote :

It seems that good things do come to those who wait. Thanks to all the developers!

Jeremy Bicha (jbicha) wrote :

Since the Ubuntu package does not have any changes from the Debian one, texlive 2011 will make it into Ubuntu 12.10 without a problem.

Because texlive is an important package (quite a few other packages need it to build documentation against) and this is an LTS cycle with a focus on not breaking things, I will wait until texlive 2011 enters Debian testing before submitting the Feature Freeze Exception required to see about getting approval for this to happen for Ubuntu 12.04.

Ivo Anjo (knuckles) wrote :

Thanks for the update. It would be just fantastic if it got in for 12.04.
(And I'm guessing that future support and maintenance would be easier?)

Jeremy Bicha (jbicha) wrote :

After looking into this a bit more, I realized that texlive isn't just one source package in Ubuntu and the packages are huge, 3 GB or more. texlive is also in main because core packages use it for building documentation. I think this is going to be way too much to try to get into Ubuntu 12.04 now that we're well after Feature Freeze. This will definitely happen for 12.10 though.

Does anyone want to help set up a PPA for 12.04?

Jeremy Bicha (jbicha) on 2012-04-03
Changed in tex-live:
status: New → Invalid
AlfC (alfredo-correa) wrote :

oh, no! no TeXLive2011 in 12.04 after all?
@jbicha, what does it change that the packages are huge or that the package it is in main? The main changes in TeX2011 are in the additions of new and awesome tex-packages, not in the core programs and core packages. I doubt that any documentation relies in the new tex-packages, so it is not to expect that something will be broken.
Besides TeX is a system know for its stability and the main programs are orders of magnitude more bug-free than standard software.

An updated TeXLive distribution is a deal breaker for academic users.

It is the real pity that TeXLive 2011 is not making it to 12.04, but PPA will also be greatly appreciated. I wish I know how to help setting up a PPA.

Jeremy Bicha (jbicha) wrote :

Alf, I have 9 source packages in my experimental PPA which take up about 3GB of space. I believe there are a few more less used source packages I haven't bothered adding yet.

As bug free as texlive may be, I don't think the Ubuntu Release Team wants to do this transition 6 weeks after Feature Freeze when we're supposed to be in heavy-duty LTS bug-fixing mode. Also, there may very well be bugs in the Debian packaging or perhaps bugs in packages that build their docs with tex.

If a Release Team member gives the go-ahead, then sure, I can help out with this, but I'm not going to fight for it to happen as there's no way I can test gigabytes of code this week.

AlfC (alfredo-correa) wrote :

@jbicha, cool, good that you are setting up the PPA,

BTW, is the partitioning of TeXLive portions based on the Debian packaging? or are you packaging directly from the manual installation of TeXLive? As soon as I upgrade my good old 10.04 I will add your PPA and give you feedback.

I wonder also if there is an intrinsic problem in setting up a PPA for TeXLive, since I never found a working one before.

Jeremy Bicha (jbicha) wrote :

Ok, try this PPA for 12.04: https://launchpad.net/~texlive-backports/+archive/ppa (and please don't use my personal dev PPA, it's experimental!)

I don't want to be the only guy maintaining this, so consider joining the team if you'd like to help with backporting packages from Debian (or Ubuntu 12.10 when the packages start showing up there).

Alf, the packaging is just a copy of Debian's work, except where Ubuntu has minor changes. (Some of those changes are just because Ubuntu limits what packages are "supported" in main, and which are left in universe. Packages in main can't depend or recommend packages in universe.) Debian has only begun publishing TexLive 2011 packages within the past two weeks.

Hi everyone,

here a few remarks from the Debian maintainer.

On Mi, 04 Apr 2012, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> As bug free as texlive may be, I don't think the Ubuntu Release Team
> wants to do this transition 6 weeks after Feature Freeze when we're
> supposed to be in heavy-duty LTS bug-fixing mode. Also, there may very
> well be bugs in the Debian packaging or perhaps bugs in packages that
> build their docs with tex.

I agree, and don't think that this will happen.

On Mi, 04 Apr 2012, AlfC wrote:
> BTW, is the partitioning of TeXLive portions based on the Debian
> packaging? or are you packaging directly from the manual installation of
> TeXLive? As soon as I upgrade my good old 10.04 I will add your PPA and
> give you feedback.

As far as I remember Ubuntu follows Debian one-to-one.

Furthermore, the partitioning scheme is taken from upstream TeX Live
collections,

On Mi, 04 Apr 2012, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> I don't want to be the only guy maintaining this, so consider joining
> the team if you'd like to help with backporting packages from Debian (or
> Ubuntu 12.10 when the packages start showing up there).

Or, what about joining the Debian TeX packaging team and actually helping
packaging, and not only porting it from Ubuntu to Debian?
If more people would have helped, we might have had packages 6month earlier.

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GALLIPOLI (adj.)
Of the behaviour of a bottom lip trying to spit mouthwash after an
injection at the dentist. Hence, loose, floppy, useless. 'She went
suddenly Gallipoli in his arms' - Noel Coward.
   --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

Norbert, thanks for all your work (and thanks to the other folks in Debian's TeX team). Personally, I don't really use TeX yet (except for making minor updates to a shared presentation with a grad student I work with), and am quite busy with Ubuntu's docs and desktop teams. I strongly agree with working upstream (I am part of the GNOME Docs team and Debian's GNOME Team) and hope that the TeX users on this bug report will become TeX contributors and help you out with testing and packaging.

The PPA does help somewhat in that it makes it easier for future Ubuntu contributors to see what the current packaging is.

Hi Jeremy,

On Mi, 04 Apr 2012, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> will become TeX contributors and help you out with testing and

So I hope, but I don't believe in it. Too many have announced too much
without ever ever contributing anything.

> The PPA does help somewhat in that it makes it easier for future Ubuntu
> contributors to see what the current packaging is.

Thanks, that is a good idea!

If you have any wishes from my side, just let me know. If we can make
packaging for Ubuntu easier in a way that it does not conflict with
Debian guidelines I am open to suggestions!

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLYMPTON (n.)
The (pointless) knob on top of a war memorial.
   --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

I tested the ppa and it seems, that it is working fine. With other words: i didn't had problems either installing nor using it so far. Thanks for setting it up!

What are the things which are left to do?

Jeremy Bicha (jbicha) wrote :

TexLive 2011 has been uploaded to the Ubuntu "Quantal Quetzal" repositories and will be available when Ubuntu 12.10 is released in October.

Changed in texlive-base (Ubuntu):
status: Confirmed → Fix Released

I am unable to install the PPA. Error trace pasted here:
http://paste.ubuntu.com/981931/

@#62

By October TeX Live 2011 is outdated and TeX Live 2012 (release planned for June) is the new stable version. See http://www.tug.org/texlive/

Debian sid already has TeX Live 2012. Is there any chance that ubuntu 12.10 will ship with TeX Live 2012?

Jeremy Bicha (jbicha) wrote :

Rüdiger, yes, texlive 2012 pre-release is already in Ubuntu 12.10 and Debian unstable.

Ingo Gerth (igerth) wrote :

We have TeXLive 2012 in 12.10 now. I would like to thank everybody involved for making this possible, many will benefit from this.

If it is possible to make a small donation, please let me know. I can not give much, but I'd like to show my appreciation.

Thanks again,
Ingo

Xiaojun Ma (damage3025) on 2012-09-04
tags: added: precise
removed: apport-bug i386 natty running-unity
summary: - [Needs packaging] TeXLive 2011
+ [needs-packaging] Latest TeXLive
tags: added: natty oneiric
Xiaojun Ma (damage3025) on 2012-09-04
description: updated
summary: - [needs-packaging] Latest TeXLive
+ [needs-packaging] Upgrade TeXLive for 11.04, 11.10, 12.04 LTS

This bug should NOT be regarded as Fixed.
We do not live in future!

Is 12.10 released?
How many people would upgrade immediately after 12.10's release?
If every bug fix is landed in "the next release", what's the meaning of so-called LTS release?
PPA is never a real solution, how many people want to run an OS with all kind of "experimental" components?

So, PLEASE, do backports of TeXLive in official repositories.
The maintainer should already see how many people want such upgrades.

Please close this bug, TeX Live 2012 is already packaged and in Ubuntu.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Ma Xiaojun wrote:
> ** Tags removed: apport-bug i386 natty running-unity
> ** Tags added: precise
>
> ** Summary changed:
>
> - [Needs packaging] TeXLive 2011
> + [needs-packaging] Latest TeXLive
>
> ** Tags added: natty oneiric
>
> ** Description changed:
>
> Binary package hint: texlive-base
>
> - Oneiric's repositories still feature TeXLive 2009 only. This package is
> - very outdated and should be updated to the upcoming TeXLive 2011 before
> - the release of 11.10.
> -
> - ProblemType: Bug
> - DistroRelease: Ubuntu 11.04
> - Package: texlive-full (not installed)
> - ProcVersionSignature: Ubuntu 2.6.38-1.28-generic 2.6.38-rc2
> - Uname: Linux 2.6.38-1-generic i686
> - NonfreeKernelModules: wl
> - Architecture: i386
> - Date: Thu Feb 3 15:55:45 2011
> - InstallationMedia: Ubuntu 11.04 "Natty Narwhal" - Alpha i386 (20110122)
> - ProcEnviron:
> -  LANGUAGE=en_US:en
> -  LANG=en_US.UTF-8
> -  LC_MESSAGES=en_US.utf8
> -  SHELL=/bin/bash
> - SourcePackage: texlive-base
> + Natty's, Oneiric's and Precise's repositories still feature TeXLive 2009
> + only. This package is very outdated and should be updated to more recent
> + version of TeXLive.
>
> ** Summary changed:
>
> - [needs-packaging] Latest TeXLive
> + [needs-packaging] Upgrade TeXLive for 11.04, 11.10, 12.04 LTS
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are a member of Debian
> TeX Maintainers, which is subscribed to the bug report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/712521
>
> Title:
> [needs-packaging] Upgrade TeXLive for 11.04, 11.10, 12.04 LTS
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/tex-live/+bug/712521/+subscriptions

Best wishes

Norbert

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live and Debian Developer
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPOTTERY (n.)
That part of a kitchen cupboard which contains an unnecessarily large
number of milk jugs.
   --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

Ubuntu has multiple releases being used and supported.
Being included in future/next release doesn't mean that the problem is resolved

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012, Ma Xiaojun wrote:
> This bug should NOT be regarded as Fixed.
> We do not live in future!

I don't care. I have packaged it for Debian. What Ubuntu does is Ubuntu's.

But you have to live with the following facts:
- TeX Live 2012 hit Ubuntu *after* the release of 11.04
- Updates are normally confined to security updates
- 11.10 will contain TL 2012

THat is life ... you can always install TeX Live from tug.org!

> If every bug fix is landed in "the next release", what's the meaning of so-called LTS release?

Security?
Stability?

Nobody said newest software!

> So, PLEASE, do backports of TeXLive in official repositories.
> The maintainer should already see how many people want such upgrades.

Hahahahaha ... Ubuntu maintainers? They take what is in Debian and add
a few fixes for Ubuntu. The last contribution from Ubuntu was poppler
patches long time ago.

No, Ubuntu users have to live with what I am packaging, and if it is
too late for Ubuntu, it is too late for Ubuntu. Nothing will change.

Best wishes

Norbert

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live and Debian Developer
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
KERRY (n.)
The small twist of skin which separated each sausage on a string.
   --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

Just to clarify, Tex Live 2012 will be available in 12.10.

Ma, please open new bugs for new issues instead of changing bug titles of already fixed bugs. To request an update for a Ubuntu stable release, you need to follow the procedures at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates

However, even if you submit a new bug for this, it honestly will not happen. It's not possible to upgrade Tex Live in older Ubuntu release as it's a foundational package and affects a large portion of the Ubuntu archive.

summary: - [needs-packaging] Upgrade TeXLive for 11.04, 11.10, 12.04 LTS
+ [needs-packaging] TeX Live 2011/2012
Xiaojun Ma (damage3025) wrote :

The duplicates of this bug already contain request for upgrades.
So now I've already unduplicate them.

Another reason why I stick with this bug is the heat here.
Since many people already subscribed to this bug, why continue use it as a discussion place?

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  Edit
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Related questions

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.