[tex-live] oversimplyfied test for lzmadec existence

Jukka Salmi j+tex-live at 2009.salmi.ch
Thu Jan 15 13:52:00 CET 2009


Karl Berry --> tex-live (2009-01-14 18:00:02 -0600):
>     (BTW, why -r instead of -x?)
> Because of DVD's getting mounted with noexec.

hmm, ok.  But eleven lines earlier the test to set $::progs{'lzmadec'}
uses -x; thus, if the file system is mounted noexec, that hash element's
value is just 'lzmadec' (without a path), and the -r test will fail
anyway (unless there's a file called 'lzmadec' in the current directory,
which would make things certainly even more fun ;-)).  In this case
setup_programs() would return -1 but should return 0 according to the
comment above the subroutine.

(Ok, the -x test is part of a patch I once sent and which you committed,
so blame me if it's wrong ;-).)

>     The attached patch changes this behaviour (in a backward compatible way,
>     of course ;-)) to try to run the program even if the absolute path is
>     not given.
> Is there any other feasible way for you to solve it?  E.g., by copying
> your binaries into place?  I remember we discussed it earlier, but I
> don't know where it stands now.

Sure, that's what I did: I copied the TL binaries to ../bin/i386-netbsd/
and then used install-tl to install the machine independent files.

I just wondered why it shouldn't be possible to e.g. list the supported
archs (`tlmgr arch list') just because the arch I'm running tlmgr on is
not supported...

> We certainly want to make it easy for you to package up TL for netbsd.
> But running lzma[dec] from PATH seems pretty dangerous.

Hmm, but I think we already reached a [1]consensus on this...

Regards, Jukka

[1] http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2008-November/018920.html

bashian roulette:
$ ((RANDOM%6)) || rm -rf ~

More information about the tex-live mailing list