That is why I madeĪnother recording clearly showing what's going on: youtu.be/ wj8OKjdZu9I I understand you may not believe me, in fact- pdf could be created before, video doesn't prove that it wasn't. Pdfatex was launched and compiiled the document, as you can see on the Video compilation started at about 11:55:53, ended about 11:55:58. " it proves that the source has never been compiled by pdflatex and that the pdf are not produced by the compilation you're supposed to have launched." - I don't agree here - It doesn't prove anything. "everybody can see on your video (58 s) that the main.pdf file has exactly the same date and time (11:55) than the source main.tex" - I agree "the log file is not displayed automatically as it should be" - I agree! "the pdf process should stop himself in 1 or 2 seconds" - I agree! I suspect there is a strange bug in the Texmaker binaries. No more weird freezes by compiling in the TeXstudio GUI instead of Texmaker. Then I installed TeXstudio 2.5.2 (SVN 3733M) as a replacement for Texmaker. Texlive-binaries, texlive-latex-base, texlive-publishers, texlive-latex-extra Then I decided to totally remove texmaker, but to keep the following packages installed: So crosstesting did not help! And there was never anything wrong with pdflatex or bibtex. tex file using pdflatex and bibtex directly in the Terminal always kept working. I then tried various pdflatex compilation options. In the beginning, it worked, but as time moved on, Texmaker would just hang (both QT4 and QT5 versions) on "Process started" and not do anything afterwards, when trying to compile using pdflatex. I can confirm Texmaker (all versions) contains strange bugs, especially when trying to compile a. tex(foo.sty) and tex-foo) are always present, or should be.ĭvipng seems to be an anomaly - I think that's a packaging bug.I have tested TexMaker 3.4 and also Texmaker 4.0.1 using QT5 and QT4 in Ubuntu 13.04 (raring). The first two virtual provides patterns (i.e. However, you can see that the packages do generally follow the prescription I outlined. I can't find it in the packaging guidelines either, though I am sure it was their once. > could not find anything via a search on the internet. > some documentation on the correct dependency listing of tex packages? I > I added both of the deps now correctly to my spec file. > Ok, but apparently that's not true for all packages: > Jindrich fixing the same problem many years ago when he moved to the current Actually this was a regression - I remember > packages should be providing tex(foo), and packages should only ever Require > Aside: Nothing should ever depend on texlive-anything since all texlive-foo > (In reply to Jonathan Underwood from comment #9) The installation should be aborted earlier, since apparently these to provide the same sty file. You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.įile /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/preview/preview.sty from install of conflicts with file from package texlive-preview-6:svn38865-42.fc28.2.noarch The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful transaction. Tex-preview noarch 12.1-3.fc28 fedora 69 k Last metadata expiration check: 2:07:30 ago on Fr 13:40:51 CEST. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): It's not possible to install the other one. If either texlive-preview or tex-preview is installed on a system.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |