[tex-k] [tex-live] mktexlsr does not include $TEXMFLOCAL when refreshing

[Zdenek Wagner]

2009/3/24 R (Chandra) Chandrasekhar <chandra at ee.uwa.edu.au>:
> Zdenek Wagner wrote:
>
>> mktexlsr /some/path rebuilds ls-R in /some/path while mktexlsr
>> consults texmf.cnf and rebuilds ls-R in directories listed in
>> TEXMFDBS. Probably "sudo mktexlsr" finds some other mktexlsr, not the
>> one distributed with TeX Live, thus it finds different texmf.cnf and
>> rebuilds ls-R in different directories. Try
>>
>> sudo which mktexlsr
>>
>> It will show you which mktexlsr was used.
>
> Thank you for your quick reply. What you have pointed out certainly is the
> cause of the reported behaviour.
>
> sudo which mktexlsr
>
> gives
>
> /usr/bin/mktexlsr
>
> whereas the one in the texlive path is at:
>
> /usr/local/texlive/2008/bin/x86_64-linux/mktexlsr
>
> Executing
>
> sudo /usr/local/texlive/2008/bin/x86_64-linux/mktexlsr
>
> does indeed include the $TEXMFLOCAL directory.
>
> In my .bashrc file, I have:
>
> ---
> PATH=/usr/local/texlive/2008/bin/x86_64-linux:$PATH; export PATH
> MANPATH=/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf/doc/man:$MANPATH; export MANPATH
> INFOPATH=/usr/local/texlive/2008/texmf/doc/info:$INFOPATH; export INFOPATH
> ---
>
> and
>
> which mktexlsr
>
> gives me
>
> /usr/local/texlive/2008/bin/x86_64-linux/mktexlsr
>
> So, it is the sudo that is changing the executable.
>
> I suspect that I have three options:
>
> 1. Clear all executables in /usr/bin that have been superseded by those
> installed by by texlive. This is non-standard and difficult because some
> were put in by the kile package and other packages, and although I have
> removed kile for now, some residual packages might remain.
>
> 2. Ensure that the texlive executables are seen first by the superuser as
> well. Doe this mean that I have to include the above lines in /root/.bashrc
> as well? If so, are there any security implications?
>
It depends whether you allow to put harmful programs to TeX Live's bin
directory.

> 3. Explicitly specify the mktexlsr to use by including the full path. This
> seems the neatest option at present.
>
> I would appreciate advice on what would be the best option.
>
> TIA.
>
> Chandra
>
>



-- 
Zdeněk Wagner
http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz