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

[R (Chandra) Chandrasekhar]

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 Clear all executables in /usr/bin that have been superseded by those 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?

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