← Back to team overview

ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive

Re: Upstream vs packaged texlive


On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jonathan Marsden <jmarsden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But why?  What is the benefit, assuming texlive is only being used for
> Ubuntu Manual, of using unpackaged Tex Live 2013 over Ubuntu Raring
> packages?  What works better, or noticeably faster, or produces higher
> quality manuals in the PDF output, in Tex Live 2013 compared to the
> results using the packages?

Historical reasons, primarily.

In the past we've had problems because we wanted to use TeX Live
packages that weren't packaged in the Debian/Ubuntu packages.  We've
also been bitten by bugs in the older Ubuntu/Debian packages that had
long since been fixed in the upstream TeX Live packages.

I haven't tested the Debian/Ubuntu packages for a year or so now, so I
can't say whether or not they'll work.  If they appear to work when
you compile the manual, then feel free to use them. It won't affect
the final PDFs that get published since I manage that myself.

Since we've always had problems with the Ubuntu/Debian packages in the
past, it's become easier to just recommend that everyone install TeX
Live from upstream so that they avoid those issues.

Incidentally, it looks like Debian sid has texlive packages that are
dated 2013. So hopefully Ubuntu will start receiving more regular
updates of texlive packages (i.e., new packages every six months
instead of getting behind by a year or more as it once was).


Follow ups