Issue description
TexLive 2017 has been released over a month ago now, and I expect the update to be nontrivial. I thought I'd create this issue to track the updating process.
NickHu
All 20 comments
cc @vcunat
NickHu
on 3 Jul 2017
Yes, highly nontrivial, probably. I don't think it will get to the top of my TODO within a few weeks at least.
vcunat
on 3 Jul 2017
Would also like to highlight the lack of a repstopdf symlink, as mentioned here https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/4210
NickHu
on 3 Jul 2017
Eh, well, I'll try adding that, though I really dislike their tendency to create a hundred executables. epstopdf --restricted will do exactly the same...
vcunat
on 3 Jul 2017
@NickHu, @7c6f434c: this patch seems ~good~ usable 7aa140488aa – can you test repstopdf in your use cases, to be surer?
vcunat
on 3 Jul 2017
It adds repstopdf link unconditionally even if epstopdf doesn't exist?
I am not sure that hacking a repstopdf package with a single symlink into texlive package set is worse (I just install it in addition to some combined TeXLive expression)
7c6f434c
on 3 Jul 2017
@7c6f434c: it only adds repstopdf conditionally on having epstopdf. I also tested that. (cp would fail anyway)
vcunat
on 3 Jul 2017
Ah nice. If only I remembered what document required repstopdf to test…
7c6f434c
on 3 Jul 2017
@7c6f434c: your thesis? :-D https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/issues/4210#issuecomment-179920807
vcunat
on 3 Jul 2017
I had a hope there is a less hopeless test case, because in case of my thesis there is also disser package and bibliography style compatibility…
7c6f434c
on 3 Jul 2017
Hm, on the other hand, it breaks on eps include _first_, so I can still test even if I do not actually succeed.
7c6f434c
on 3 Jul 2017
@vcunat erm, in what branch is that repstopdf fix?
7c6f434c
on 4 Jul 2017
@7c6f434c, it's in my fork: https://github.com/vcunat/nixpkgs/commits/texlive-repstopdf
vcunat
on 4 Jul 2017
It might be easiest to simply run curl https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/commit/7aa140488aa.patch | git am in such cases...
vcunat
on 4 Jul 2017
One could naively expect that if GitHub agrees to show it in NixOS/NixPkgs, there is a branch of this repository that contains the commit. I certainly did.
7c6f434c
on 4 Jul 2017
It includes some "related" repositories, apparently, and I misused that here. It would be nice if they showed some reachability information, though. EDIT: it might actually be a simple side-effect of their optimizing all forks together...
vcunat
on 4 Jul 2017
It would be even nicer if Git handled branches in a saner way…
Looks like this hack does allow my thesis compilation to fail on bibliography instead of repstopdf.
7c6f434c
on 4 Jul 2017
Any news on texlive 2017 ?
Nadrieril
on 28 Sep 2017
@Nadrieril: not on my side, at least.
vcunat
on 28 Sep 2017
@NickHu, @7c6f434c: this patch seems good usable 7aa1404 – can you test
repstopdfin your use cases, to be surer?
The repstopdf created this way worked on our end. However the check for epstopdf being a symlink seems to fail.
sveitser
on 12 Oct 2018
Related issues
retrry
·
3Comments
matthiasbeyer
·
3Comments
langston-barrett
·
3Comments
rzetterberg
·
3Comments
ayyess
·
3Comments
Most helpful comment
Hm, on the other hand, it breaks on
epsinclude _first_, so I can still test even if I do not actually succeed.