From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adonay Felipe Nogueira Subject: bug#28758: texlive@2017: Update to at least revision 44704 to address bug in latexdiff Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 20:33:05 -0200 Message-ID: <87r2tf3sda.fsf@hyperbola.info> References: <87k204wgpu.fsf@hyperbola.info> <87o9pgm3xj.fsf@elephly.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41750) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAkXN-00067a-JJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:34:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAkXK-00037N-GH for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:34:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:41248) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eAkXK-000378-D7 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:34:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87o9pgm3xj.fsf@elephly.net> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: 28758@debbugs.gnu.org I have downloaded TeX Live repository but unfortunatelly I found out that the directory structure of the repository is different than the release's. An option would be to make latexdiff into a separate package, with a name such as "texlive-texmf-scripts-latexdiff", and take the source from either latexdiff CTAN page ([1]) or their development repository ([2]) and in either case remove the latexdiff from the "texlive-texmf" package. But in this option, I don't know if latexdiff would need other parts of TeX Live to be updated in order to work correctly. [1] . [2] . Ricardo Wurmus writes: > There hasn=E2=80=99t been a new release tag that includes this change, an= d I=E2=80=99m > not comfortable with just increasing the revision to an arbitrary > development revision. > > Is this something we can apply as a patch to a single package? If so, > which package requires this fix?