[OS X TeX] Re: Using 'ditto' to shrink /usr/local/texlive folder
sirgadabout1 at gmail.com
Mon Jan 30 23:07:22 CET 2012
>> So, would I, for example, have to re-create the symbolic links
>> that point to this folder?
Am 30.1.2012 um 00:14 schrieb Peter Dyballa:
> No. When they're real UNIX sym-links they will be OK after renaming
> /usr/local/texlive2 >back to /usr/local/texlive. (The HFS file links are
Well, that's one less thing to worry about :)
On Jan 30, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Nicola wrote:
> I did some experimentation with ditto on Snow Leopard some time ago, and
> results were nearly perfect.
> HFS compression worked flawlessly.
And that's another :)
>> In addition, it might be nice to thin the 'texlive' folder by also using
>> the '--arch x86_64' switch---my Mac uses the 64-bit kernel by default,
>> see. Does anyone know whether this particular switch would cause
> I can't help here. I think that problems may arise if there are 32bit-only
> dynamic libraries in the distribution.
Yes. I occasionally run into this issue when thinning applications.
Am 30.1.2012 um 11:56 schrieb Peter Dyballa:
> I think you could do something much better: delete the 32-bit stuff!
> So just delete /usr/local/texlive/2011/bin/universal-darwin!
I didn't delve much further than /usr/local/texlive, so I didn't notice
that there were two folders for the binaries, as you describe. If simply
removing the /universal-darwin folder is tantamount to employing "ditto
--arch x86_64" then that's what I'll do :)
On Jan 30, 2012, at 7:03 AM, Herbert Schulz wrote:
> Would that mess up tlmgr updates?
Which is a good question. However, in my case, not being a TeX pro by any
means, it's unlikely I'll be touching tlmgr. You also point out that
updates to TeX Live on the Mac are "very rare", so that's another thing for
me not to worry about :)
I will ask, just to make sure: presumably I won't be losing any other
functionality by deleting the aforementioned folder? For example, it's
conceivable that some binaries in the /universal-darwin folder are used
regardless of the architecture you're running? Like I say, just making
> One additional point. The universal binaries take up about 160MB on disk.
Is it worth it given present HD capacities?
I guess I have several views on this point. One: the smaller I keep my
main install disk, the smaller my backups. This means I can squeeze more
backups, dating back further, on the same external drive. It also mean it
takes less time to produce the backups. Two: I use Time Machine, and the
less data it has to backup, the more space there is for more backups,
stretching back further and further into the past. Three: by keeping my
boot drive as small as possible, I'm assuming it makes it faster to access
the data I need, because the read head has to travel less to find what I
need. This also reduces wear and tear on the drive head. Four: I use a
Mac Pro with a 160GB 10k RPM WD drive, but also have a MacBook Pro (MBP)
with a 120GB SSD. I tend to use my Mac Pro to experiment with space-saving
measures that I can then translate successfully to my MBP. I guess a final
Five would be: at times like this, when natural disasters can squeeze the
HDD supply and raise prices significantly, it's prudent to be conservative
with disk space :)
Thank you very much for all the responses. I guess once I receive a reply
regarding the effect of removing /universal-darwin, I'll get right onto
this. I'll post a disk-space before-and-after for anyone who's interested
when it's done.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the macostex-archives