[tex-live] oversimplyfied test for lzmadec existence
j+tex-live at 2009.salmi.ch
Thu Jan 15 14:20:16 CET 2009
Norbert Preining --> tex-live (2009-01-14 16:58:18 +0100):
> Dear Jukka,
> On Mi, 14 Jan 2009, Jukka Salmi wrote:
> > after installing TL 2008 on a NetBSD/i386 4.0 system I noticed that
> > tlmgr(1) always complains about lzmadec not being found (I do have a
> > usable lzmadec binary in my $PATH):
> There is a reason we give up on that: The lzma format is changing and
> not fixed. I might be that your lzmadec does not correctly handle the
> version we are using to generate the packs.
> For that reason we decided to die if there is no lzmadec binary for the
Ok, but given the case that I do have working (but unsupported) TL
binaries, I don't see why tlmgr(1) should care...
> BTW, if your arch is not supported, which binaries are you running?
> Do the binaries you are using actually work? If yes, we could add some
> alias so that other people can install TL2008 on your arch.
> I guess you used the i386-freebsd binaries?
No, I use custom built NetBSD binaries. And yes, they work ;-)
> Another way would have been to copy the
> (assuming that this is what platform returns)
> Anyway, thanks a lot for your contribution, let us try to get this
> working for i386-netbsd.
This probably doesn't make sense for NetBSD. TL would need to provide
about 30 lzma bundles (see here, last paragraph).
Maybe TL should support an additional "other" architecture: when running
one of the supported architectures, install-tl and tlmgr work as they do
now. But when running an unsupported ("other") architecture, it's the
user's duty to make sure all needed binaries (TL, lzma, maybe others)
are available. But if he does so, then install-tl and tlmgr should work
as they do for the supported architectures.
> > bashian roulette:
> > $ ((RANDOM%6)) || rm -rf ~
> Hihi ... just tried, succeeded!
I do hope that the left-hand side "succeeded" ;-)
$ ((RANDOM%6)) || rm -rf ~
More information about the tex-live