[tex-live] TeXLive has no stable source tree and resorts to DVD with binaries?

Kārlis Repsons karlis.repsons at gmail.com
Tue Apr 12 22:42:05 CEST 2011

Thanks for your nice reply and see about source building below:

On Monday 11 April 2011 17:02:02 Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> why you would want to build TeX Live
> from source
It would take much time to explain all, but basically I've concluded, that as 
a system maintainer I should rebuild all from source to:
*] ensure consistency with source code;
*] at least sometimes have some CPU optimizations;
*] have another consistency check at build time...

TeXLive seems to be quite self-confined, so the last argument is of lesser 
importance than otherwise, but not irrelevant anyway...

I kindly ask someone to explain a few more things (ignore me if you have no 

a] what extra care has been taken to fill contents of branches like branch2010 
comparing with a mere snapshot of development tree in a state between 

b] does branch2010 coincides with some released DVDs?

c] does rsync://tug.org::tldevsrc gives the same as checkout of branch2010?

d] executable binaries (and the like) in CTAN/systems/texlive/tlnet usually 
get updated once per year with the new release?

e] script files (what else?) in CTAN/systems/texlive/tlnet get updated on a 
regular basis to provide bugfixes? What about further improvements, how long do 
they lie in trunk before being merged in tlnet?

(anyone thinks I can google this as fast as it takes writing questions and 
answers, then reading here?)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/attachments/20110412/0c547530/attachment.bin>

More information about the tex-live mailing list