[OS X TeX] TUG installer symlinks in /usr/bin

[Claus Gerhardt]

I recommend that next time you first check if the rumours you heard  
of are correct, it is /usr/local/bin. Believe me the "open" problems  
can rather easily be solved, and I would wish and recommend to simply  
wait for the result.

Claus

o – Other options. From this menu, you can select the following  
general options:
a Specify an alternate directory for generated fonts. The default is  
to use the TEXMFVAR tree,
as explained above. Setting this is useful if you plan to mount the  
main tree read-only, and
therefore you need another location (perhaps host-specific) for  
dynamically created fonts.
l Create symbolic links for the binaries, man pages, and/or GNU Info  
files in other locations.
For example, you may wish to make the man pages available under /usr/ 
local/man and
the Info files available under /usr/local/info. (Of course you need  
appropriate privileges
to write in the specified directories.)
It is not advisable to overwrite a TEX system that came with your  
system with this option.
It’s intended primarily for creating the links in standard  
directories that are known to users,
such as /usr/local/bin, which don’t already contain any TEX files.

On Nov 27, 2006, at 0:59, Joachim Kock wrote:

> Just to add another complicating element to the discussions:
> the TeXLive installer from TUG offers an option to create
> symlinks in /usr/bin/ to the tex programs.  As far as I can
> see, this represents a potential conflict with the installers
> and switchers based on Gerben's setpath script.  Namely,
> Gerben's script appends to PATH instead of prepending.  Since
> by default the /etc/profile defines the PATH to be /bin:/sbin:/usr/ 
> bin:/usr/sbin, this means that if a user
> installs from TUG with the symlink option, all future upgrades
> via MacTeX or TeX Switcher (or i-Installer?) will fail to
> adjust the PATH correctly.  The old /usr/bin/ symlinks will
> take precedence, pointing to the old installation.
>
> I have not tried this in practice.  If I am wrong I apologise
> for the noise.
>
> On the other hand, If this is right, then it is an illustration
> of what I just wrote in response to Claus, namely that an
> installer script can not possibly know what programs the user
> has in his PATH (short of globbing, or such brute-force tricks),
> In this case the surprise is that the user has TeX programs
> in /usr/bin/!
>
> Is it possible that it would be more correct for the setpath
> script to prepend instead of appending?  Perhaps it isn't, and
> perhaps it would be an overreaction to change the order...
> That's Gerben's decision, of course -- I do not pretend to be
> an expert.  I just thought I would mention the issue.
>
> Cheers,
> Joachim.
>
> PS: in fact the same problem would seem to occur if a user
> first installs a Fink tex, and then one of Gerben's: since
> Fink prepends /sw/bin, Gerben's script would not have any
> effect...  I can hardly believe I am right -- I would imagine
> this sort of conflict had happened several times in the early
> days of OSX, when the last Fink tex'ers switched to Gerben's
> distro...
> ------------------------- Info --------------------------
> Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
>           & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
> TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
> List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/
>

------------------------- Info --------------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
          & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/