Q: How to satisfy LaTeX package requirements on Ubuntu 9.04?
Jonathan Fine
I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and wish to run a document that uses the datatool
package. The README file helpfully says
===
The datatool.sty package requires the following packages/files:
xkeyval
ifthen
xfor
fp
substr
etex
===
Now, I could do
sudo apt-get install texlive-full
but this will download 449MB of archives and consume 882MB of additional
disk space. And only after doing that will I know if my document will run.
Does anyone know a better way? I have looked at
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LaTeX
but it does not address this problem.
--
Jonathan
Jonathan Fine
> Now, I could do
> sudo apt-get install texlive-full
> but this will download 449MB of archives and consume 882MB of additional
> disk space. And only after doing that will I know if my document will run.
>
> Does anyone know a better way? I have looked at
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LaTeX
> but it does not address this problem.
I've found another page
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/MiktexPackageManager
but have not been able to find the source files referred to in it.
--
Jonathan
Joseph Wright
For the very basic document:
\listfiles
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{datatool}
\begin{document}
\end{document}
I get \listfiles output
article.cls 2005/09/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX document class
size10.clo 2005/09/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX file (size option)
datatool.sty 2009/03/27 v2.01 (NLCT)
xkeyval.sty 2008/08/13 v2.6a package option processing (HA)
xkeyval.tex 2008/08/13 v2.6a key=value parser (HA)
ifthen.sty 2001/05/26 v1.1c Standard LaTeX ifthen package (DPC)
xfor.sty 2009/02/05 v1.05 (NLCT)
fp.sty 1995/04/02
defpattern.sty 1994/10/12
fp-basic.sty 1996/05/13
fp-addons.sty 1995/03/15
fp-snap.sty 1995/04/05
fp-exp.sty 1995/04/03
fp-trigo.sty 1995/04/14
fp-pas.sty 1994/08/29
fp-random.sty 1995/02/23
fp-eqn.sty 1995/04/03
fp-upn.sty 1996/10/21
fp-eval.sty 1995/04/03
substr.sty 2005/11/29 v1.1 Handle substrings
etex.sty 1998/03/26 v2.0 eTeX basic definition package (PEB)
with MiKTeX 2.7. Should give some clues (although I'm using datatool
2, which I doubt is in Ubuntu yet).
--
Joseph Wright
Jonathan Fine
> For the very basic document:
>
> \listfiles
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{datatool}
> \begin{document}
> \end{document}
>
> I get \listfiles output
>
> article.cls 2005/09/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX document class
> size10.clo 2005/09/16 v1.4f Standard LaTeX file (size option)
> datatool.sty 2009/03/27 v2.01 (NLCT)
> xkeyval.sty 2008/08/13 v2.6a package option processing (HA)
> xkeyval.tex 2008/08/13 v2.6a key=value parser (HA)
[snip]
> substr.sty 2005/11/29 v1.1 Handle substrings
> etex.sty 1998/03/26 v2.0 eTeX basic definition package (PEB)
>
> with MiKTeX 2.7.
Thanks, Joseph, for the list of files that I'll need. But my problem is
not in the list but in getting and installing all these files. I was
hoping that there was something better than getting them one-by-one from
CTAN and installing them by hand. Something like the very useful MikTeX
package manager, in fact.
--
Jonathan
Guenter Milde
> Hello
> I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and wish to run a document that uses the datatool
> package. The README file helpfully says
>===
> The datatool.sty package requires the following packages/files:
> xkeyval
...
> Now, I could do
> sudo apt-get install texlive-full
> but this will download 449MB of archives and consume 882MB of additional
> disk space. And only after doing that will I know if my document will run.
You can look for these with apt-file:
#> apt-file find xkeyval
texlive-latex-recommended: /usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/xkeyval/keyval.tex
...
(This is on Debian but Ubuntu should be similar.)
Actually, installing texlive-recommended might already solve the problem.
Günter
Joseph Wright
> Thanks, Joseph, for the list of files that I'll need. But my problem is
> not in the list but in getting and installing all these files. I was
> hoping that there was something better than getting them one-by-one from
> CTAN and installing them by hand. Something like the very useful MikTeX
> package manager, in fact.
perhaps?
--
Joseph Wright
Jonathan Fine
> You can look for these with apt-file:
>
> #> apt-file find xkeyval
>
> texlive-latex-recommended: /usr/share/texmf-texlive/tex/latex/xkeyval/keyval.tex
> ...
Thanks Guenter. Good suggestion. I didn't know about this. So I'm
installing it. And so I download 1 MB for apt-file and 15 MB for the
table of contents/list of files. (Actually 15 MB twice because the
first download failed.)
> (This is on Debian but Ubuntu should be similar.)
Works just fine for me on Ubuntu (which is Debian based).
> Actually, installing texlive-recommended might already solve the problem.
And the TOC download continues to fail for me, but that's purely and
Ubuntu problem.
--
Jonathan
Jonathan Fine
Already downloaded and tried that one. Not working for me. Says
Couldn't resolve host name
as part of synchronizing the package repository.
It might be that I'm running on AMD64 Linux (but I don't see why).
--
Jonathan
Lars Madsen
ubuntu will give you the old TL2007.
Install TL2008 instead, you can use equivs to make ubuntu think that you
have installed all the relevant LaTeX packages.
There might be a version of TL2009 in ubuntu later on, but no TL2008.
--
/daleif (remove RTFSIGNATURE from email address)
LaTeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
LaTeX book: http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/bog/ (in Danish)
Remember to post minimal examples, see URL below
http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=minxampl
http://www.minimalbeispiel.de/mini-en.html
Jonathan Fine
>> Now, I could do
>> sudo apt-get install texlive-full
>> but this will download 449MB of archives and consume 882MB of
>> additional disk space. And only after doing that will I know if my
>> document will run.
>>
>> Does anyone know a better way? I have looked at
>> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LaTeX
>> but it does not address this problem.
>>
>
> ubuntu will give you the old TL2007.
Good point, Lars. I was, without thinking, expecting that I would get
tex-live from this, and not 'tex-stale'.
Thank you for saving me time (and bandwidth, which costs money).
> Install TL2008 instead, you can use equivs to make ubuntu think that you
> have installed all the relevant LaTeX packages.
Well, this is something else I'll have to learn. Sigh.
> There might be a version of TL2009 in ubuntu later on, but no TL2008.
Any idea why there was no tex-live 2008 for ubuntu?
--
Jonathan
Lars Madsen
>
> Good point, Lars. I was, without thinking, expecting that I would get
> tex-live from this, and not 'tex-stale'.
>
> Thank you for saving me time (and bandwidth, which costs money).
>
>> Install TL2008 instead, you can use equivs to make ubuntu think that
>> you have installed all the relevant LaTeX packages.
>
> Well, this is something else I'll have to learn. Sigh.
>
>> There might be a version of TL2009 in ubuntu later on, but no TL2008.
>
> Any idea why there was no tex-live 2008 for ubuntu?
>
developers have limited time (and everything needs to be repacked for
Ubuntu, I usually just tell people to install everything, space is
cheap, so I don't quite understand the need for all those Ubuntu packages)
For the equivs stuff there someone wrote a page in french about the
procedure, I tried it and translated it into danish
It is fairly simple.
Asume (aren't we all mathematicians?) given an Ubuntu with no LaTeX
installed.
Install TeXlive 2008 as described on the TUG page.
(it is a good idea to run
sudo apt-get install perl-doc perl-tk
first, then TL2008 can be installed using a GUI)
next do this:
sudo apt-get install equivs
mkdir ~/tl-loc
cd ~/tl-loc
equivs-control texlive-local
Next replace the content of the created texlive-local file with
Section: misc
Priority: optional
Standards-Version: 3.6.2
Package: texlive-local
Version: 2008-1
Maintainer: MPG
Provides: cm-super, cm-super-minimal, context, 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,
latex-sanskrit, latex-xcolor, lmodern, luatex, musixtex, pgf, prosper,
tex4ht, tex4ht-common, texinfo, texlive-base, texlive-base-bin,
texlive-base-bin-doc, texlive-bibtex-extra, texlive-common,
texlive-doc-base, texlive-doc-bg, texlive-doc-cs+sk, texlive-doc-de,
texlive-doc-el, texlive-doc-en, texlive-doc-es, texlive-doc-fi,
texlive-doc-fr, texlive-doc-it, texlive-doc-ja, texlive-doc-ko,
texlive-doc-mn, texlive-doc-nl, texlive-doc-pl, texlive-doc-pt,
texlive-doc-ru, texlive-doc-th, texlive-doc-tr, texlive-doc-uk,
texlive-doc-vi, texlive-doc-zh, texlive-extra-utils, texlive-font-utils,
texlive-fonts-extra, texlive-fonts-extra-doc, texlive-fonts-recommended,
texlive-fonts-recommended-doc, texlive-formats-extra, texlive-full,
texlive-games, texlive-generic-extra, texlive-generic-recommended,
texlive-humanities, texlive-humanities-doc, texlive-lang-african,
texlive-lang-arab, texlive-lang-armenian, texlive-lang-croatian,
texlive-lang-cyrillic, texlive-lang-czechslovak, texlive-lang-danish,
texlive-lang-dutch, texlive-lang-finnish, texlive-lang-french,
texlive-lang-german, texlive-lang-greek, texlive-lang-hebrew,
texlive-lang-hungarian, texlive-lang-indic, texlive-lang-italian,
texlive-lang-latin, texlive-lang-manju, texlive-lang-mongolian,
texlive-lang-norwegian, texlive-lang-other, texlive-lang-polish,
texlive-lang-portuguese, texlive-lang-spanish, texlive-lang-swedish,
texlive-lang-tibetan, texlive-lang-ukenglish, texlive-lang-vietnamese,
texlive-latex-base, texlive-latex-base-doc, texlive-latex-extra,
texlive-latex-extra-doc, texlive-latex-recommended,
texlive-latex-recommended-doc, texlive-latex3, texlive-math-extra,
texlive-metapost, texlive-metapost-doc, texlive-music, texlive-omega,
texlive-pictures, texlive-pictures-doc, texlive-plain-extra,
texlive-pstricks, texlive-pstricks-doc, texlive-publishers,
texlive-publishers-doc, texlive-science, texlive-science-doc,
texlive-xetex, tipa,
Architecture: all
Description: Installation locale de TeX Live.
Installation locale d'une TeX Live nature complete.
next compile this file:
equivs-build texlive-local
this creates a .deb package that just needs to be installed.
sudo dpkg -i texlive-local_2008-1_all.deb
that is it, now editors like texmaker install without problems.
My page in Danish has the URL:
http://www.imf.au.dk/system/latex/artikler/tl2008_i_ubuntu.html
Jonathan Fine
> For the equivs stuff there someone wrote a page in french about the
> procedure, I tried it and translated it into danish
>
> It is fairly simple.
[instructions snipped]
Oh, thanks, Lars. You're an expert. I might give it a try when I get
home (which is where the Ubuntu machine is).
--
Jonathan
Christoph Bersch
>
> It is fairly simple.
>
> Asume (aren't we all mathematicians?) given an Ubuntu with no LaTeX
> installed.
>
> Install TeXlive 2008 as described on the TUG page.
>
> (it is a good idea to run
>
> sudo apt-get install perl-doc perl-tk
>
> first, then TL2008 can be installed using a GUI)
Just an additional comment:
When you install TeXLive 2008 on Debian-based distributions, you must
pay attention when you adjust the $PATH variable or create links to the
executables:
TeXLive ships an own version of 'install-info' which is not compatible
with the Debian install-info and crashes the Debian package manager when
installing new packages!
So I did not adjust the PATH variable to point to the TeXLive bin
directory, but created links in /usr/local/bin to all files (exept
'install-info') in the texlive/2008/i386-linux folder.
For me that works great!
Christoph
Lars Madsen
I usually just make adjustments to /etc/environment, which is the basic
PATH setting
AFAIK install-info will be removed from TeXLive
Randy Yates
Jonathan,
uname -a
on a command line will show you the details of your currently-installed
system, including whether it is the 32-bit version (i386) or the 64-bit
version (x86-64). For example, on my system that command produces
Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.27.21-170.2.56.fc10.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Mar 23 23:08:10 EDT 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Randy Yates
Jonathan Fine
>> Already downloaded and tried that one. Not working for me. Says
>> Couldn't resolve host name
>> as part of synchronizing the package repository.
>>
>> It might be that I'm running on AMD64 Linux (but I don't see why).
>
> Jonathan,
>
> uname -a
>
> on a command line will show you the details of your currently-installed
> system,
Thanks, Randy. I knew that. (There was an ambiguity in what I wrote.
I do know that I'm running AMD64, but I don't see why it should make any
difference. But I did want to record that information - some programs
are not 64-bit clean.)
--
Jonathan
Jonathan Fine
> Randy Yates <ya...@ieee.org> writes:
>> [...]
>
> Never mind! I see I misinterpreted your problem.
And I didn't read your second post before replying to your first. So
now we're quits in premature posting and waste of bandwidth.
--
Jonathan
Martin Scharrer
I removed the Ubuntu TeXLive files manually but did not deleted the
package so that Ubuntu still thinks it is installed. Otherwise Ubuntu
will most likely just reinstall it as a dependency for other
packages.
I then installed TeXLive using the network installer manually:
Simply download the network installer and run it as root using sudo.
You can then install new packages using the 'tlmgr' tool:
# tlmgr install $PACKAGENAME
You can also keep the packages up-to-date using:
# tlmgr update $PACKAGENAME
or
# tlmgr update --all
I'm not sure of tlmgr works also with the normal Ubuntu TexLive
installation.
Best,
Martin
Lars Madsen
it doesn't
also remember that for now you only need to run
tlmgr update --all
once, TL 2008, is now frozen, there will be no more updates.
(the TL people are working on a method such that TL 2009 can later be
continuously updated, but that wasn't possible for TL 2008, not sure why)
Randy Yates
Good! :)
By the way, I really don't understand the problem. At first it seemed
that Ubuntu didn't come with TeXLive, but then subsequently it appears
there is a Debian TeXLive package.
Too bad, because I was going to suggest moving to Fedora - F10 had
TeXLive as part of the distro, and having been a TeXLive CD user
of years past, I'm quite happy with it.
But again, these comments may not address your problems.
--
% Randy Yates % "She's sweet on Wagner-I think she'd die for Beethoven.
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % She love the way Puccini lays down a tune, and
%%% 919-577-9882 % Verdi's always creepin' from her room."
%%%% <ya...@ieee.org> % "Rockaria", *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Robin Fairbairns
>Lars Madsen wrote:
>> There might be a version of TL2009 in ubuntu later on, but no TL2008.
>
>Any idea why there was no tex-live 2008 for ubuntu?
the man who has mostly been struggling hard this year to make on-line
tl update reliable, is also a debian packager (or perhaps _the_ debian
packager -- i'm not sure).
since he spent so much time on tl itself, he didn't manage to do the
debian package.
and, of course, no debian package => no ubuntu package.
it's no doubt all for the good in the end, but it's hard on people who
need the latest thing.
fwiw, there's a fedora rpm for tl2008, but my fedora expert didn't
manage to get it going.
--
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge
Joris
The texlive 2008 disk is a breeze to install, albeit that the DVD
should be mounted without --noexec, i.e. not what the Ubuntu desktop
does naturally. Not a package, true.
Sebastian Szwarc
>
> The texlive 2008 disk is a breeze to install, albeit that the DVD
> should be mounted without --noexec, i.e. not what the Ubuntu desktop
> does naturally. Not a package, true.
There is a Publishing repository for OpenSuse11 and 11.1 where latest
TexLive should exist, however without tlmgr.
This is the case what I pointed somewhen on that list and got reply "Why
don't you help packaging instead of complaining?"
I think for many people it is very frustrating that MS Windows is
privileged despite constant talks about what advantages open source has
over commercial system.
TL group spend lot of effort and work to release TL2008 even for PowerPC
(btw WHY????, who uses powerpc? only owners of old Mac's and they are
pretty happy with his machines without tl09 :)) instead of encouraging
developers to do something for Linux world.
Sad thing is I think that people who knows Linux, doesnt understand TeX,
and those who develop TeX are not fully aware of Linux world. Sad, but true.
Installing texlive2008 from CD on Linux is IMO bad idea - that;s why
repositories are created and newest version of software should be placed
THERE because of dependancies.
If you install TL2008 from DVD and then you want to install e.g. Kile
dependancies forces system to download and install TL from the
repository , which may give conflilct with libraries, messing with
PATHS, and it is generally waste of space ( I dont agree with conclusion
"Space is cheap" - that kind of thinking result in bad optimization for
newest software. - MSDOS could run on 386 machines and today to emulate
DOS you need 1GHz processor :P)
Today I have problem on Ubuntu 9.04 to install even Kile from KDE3
instead of buggy KDE4 so I am not surprised that problem occurs.
For today, the best option should be installing Miktex-tools from
scratch on Ubuntu - however it is still Beta 2 and I got one error
during compilation,if Mr.Schenk correct this, it will be the best
solution for everyone who want have in his TeX installation only
nessecary things because at last installing "on-the-fly" is available on
Linux (thing, that developers of TL cannot do)
Best Regards
Sebastian Szwarc
Thomas A. Schmitz
> I think for many people it is very frustrating that MS Windows
> is privileged despite constant talks about what advantages open
> source has over commercial system. TL group spend lot of effort
> and work to release TL2008 even for PowerPC (btw WHY????, who
> uses powerpc? only owners of old Mac's and they are pretty happy
> with his machines without tl09 :)) instead of encouraging
> developers to do something for Linux world.
What a stupid thing to write. With the same right, one could say
"who uses linux anyway? Only some fuddy-duddies who should compile
their own version of TeX." Whining and offending people who happen
to use other OS's and other platforms won't help you one bit. Btw,
I build the TL binaries for powerpc-linux, so in addition to being
whiny, your spiel about "spending effort on powerpc instead of
linux," also shows that you're ignorant.
Thomas
Joris
Ubuntu overall is pretty good about package consistency and yes,
packages are preferable. But you can't always avoid downloading and
installing source, as with e.g. the torque package I downloaded for
Ubuntu 8.04 and which someone messed up beyond belief.
J.
Sebastian Szwarc
>
> Ubuntu overall is pretty good about package consistency and yes,
> packages are preferable. But you can't always avoid downloading and
> installing source, as with e.g. the torque package I downloaded for
> Ubuntu 8.04 and which someone messed up beyond belief.
>
> J.
Yes you right, but TL is special case, TL developers made different path
for the binaries that tl packages installed from packages.
and the problem I mentioned is that other applications will still depend
on tl packages from repo so installing from source is a bit risky.
I am still waiting for final release on Miktex on Linux that may
simplify things a bit.
Sebastian
Sebastian Szwarc
> What a stupid thing to write. With the same right, one could say "who
> uses linux anyway? Only some fuddy-duddies who should compile their own
> version of TeX." Whining and offending people who happen to use other
> OS's and other platforms won't help you one bit. Btw, I build the TL
> binaries for powerpc-linux, so in addition to being whiny, your spiel
> about "spending effort on powerpc instead of linux," also shows that
> you're ignorant.
>
> Thomas
What a stupid thing to hear :(
I use Linux for several years both with windows, and it looks you didnt
understand my post.
Power-PC is an architecture, Linux is name for kernel/OS.
Speaking like you I could say,"If you love PowerPC so much, why dont you
build package for S390? or maybe for Commodore64?"
Time is flowing, some solution evolve, some are gooing to be forgotten.
It is not accident that Apple switched to Intel, and I really dont
believe powerPC has some future (maybe only on PS3) If someone own such
old Apple Machine he or she is usually happy what he has.
Speaking like you I could say, If you going to build TexLive for PowerPc
why dont you build TeTeX? Because Tetex is obsolete?
According to your words: "who
> uses linux anyway? Only some fuddy-duddies who should compile their own
> version of TeX."
If you are not ignorant you should know that this is still true on
Gentoo and Sabayon and was still the case in Ubuntu 8.10 for TL2008 and
even in OpenSuse TL2008 was not enabled in OSS repository.
I always appreciate people using other systems but this is unfortunately
true that developers are still creating distributions for themselves,
not for users.And this is not only my opinion, we had several
discussions in my country on this subject.
So sorry if you feel offended as developer but if programmers working
for free, has so little time for this job let's use the time they have
for progress.
regards
Sebastian
Steve Checkoway
> > What a stupid thing to write. With the same right, one could say "who
> > uses linux anyway? Only some fuddy-duddies who should compile their own
> > version of TeX." Whining and offending people who happen to use other
> > OS's and other platforms won't help you one bit. Btw, I build the TL
> > binaries for powerpc-linux, so in addition to being whiny, your spiel
> > about "spending effort on powerpc instead of linux," also shows that
> > you're ignorant.
>
> > Thomas
>
> What a stupid thing to hear :(
> I use Linux for several years both with windows, and it looks you didnt
> understand my post.
>
> Power-PC is an architecture, Linux is name for kernel/OS.
> Speaking like you I could say,"If you love PowerPC so much, why dont you
> build package for S390? or maybe for Commodore64?"
Uh, what? He made that comment about fuddy-duddies as an example of
the sort of (lack of) reasoning you're employing.
> Time is flowing, some solution evolve, some are gooing to be forgotten.
I don't know what you're trying to say here, but it doesn't make any
sense.
> It is not accident that Apple switched to Intel, and I really dont
> believe powerPC has some future (maybe only on PS3) If someone own such
> old Apple Machine he or she is usually happy what he has.
You don't know what you're talking about. I still have several PowerPC
machines, some running Mac OS X, some running Linux. In all cases, I
want the latest TeX Live. How does having an old machine relate in any
way to not wanting new software?
> Speaking like you I could say, If you going to build TexLive for PowerPc
> why dont you build TeTeX? Because Tetex is obsolete?
Go back and reread what he wrote.
> According to your words: "who
>
> > uses linux anyway? Only some fuddy-duddies who should compile their own
> > version of TeX."
No really, reread what he wrote. He was speaking as you were in an
example to show your fallacious thinking.
> If you are not ignorant you should know that this is still true on
> Gentoo and Sabayon and was still the case in Ubuntu 8.10 for TL2008 and
> even in OpenSuse TL2008 was not enabled in OSS repository.
What is "this" that is still true here? You're not making any sense.
> I always appreciate people using other systems but this is unfortunately
> true that developers are still creating distributions for themselves,
> not for users.
Are you saying that the developers owe the users something? If so,
why?
> And this is not only my opinion, we had several
> discussions in my country on this subject.
I'm not sure what your point is here.
> So sorry if you feel offended as developer but if programmers working
> for free, has so little time for this job let's use the time they have
> for progress.
You've got that completely backward. Programmers working for free
decide what they're going to spend their time on. Neither you nor I
have any right to tell them what do spend their time doing. The fact
that you think you do is really pretty insulting to the people who
work hard to give you the programs you use for free.
--
Steve Checkoway