[tex-live] my experience of building TeX Live with Windows gcc 64 bits
Philip Taylor
P.Taylor at Rhul.Ac.Uk
Sat Jul 2 09:33:54 CEST 2016
Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> do you *want* to compile the binaries yourself? An alternative is to
> steal them from Akira's W32TeX. The file
>
> http://ctan.ijs.si/mirror/w32tex/current/win64/xetex-w64.tar.xz
>
> is just two days old and very likely contains the latest fix.
>
> As far as your question is concerned, my experience is that it is
> *much* easier to compile programs on Linux and Cygwin rather than with
> MinGW. Thus I suppose that Akira's binaries are a very good
> alternative, at least
I really would like to be able to compile at least XeTeX, Reinhard -- then I can experiment with features that I think useful but which are not of interest to others. The 64-bit version is optional, but as I have a 64-bit processor and a 64-bit operating system, a 64-bit XeTeX binary would seem to make sense to me ...
And I also think that the TeX community as a whole would benefit if expertise in compiling TeX Live for Windows were more widely distributed than at present -- the entire TeX world is surely grateful to Akira for his incredibly useful work, but if he were suddenly to find himself in a position where he could no longer offer this service, then it would seem to me to be important that a few others should be able to slowly try to take over what he has been doing single-handedly until now ...
The real problem, as I now understand rather better than I did 24 hours ago (i.e., pre-MinGW) is that one does not simply "compile XeTeX". The whole thing is wrapped in a whole sequence of wrappers (build, configure, make, ...), none of which do I understand in the slightest.
Anyhow, my attempt failed. I tried the following :
> # Create build directory:
> mkdir Work
> cd Work
> # Do the configure:
> ../configure --disable-all-pkgs --enable-xetex -C CFLAGS=-g CXXFLAGS=-g
>
> # Do the make:
> make
no error was reported at the final exit of "make", but no XeTeX binary was created and instead I ended up with dozens of new, partially populated directories in "Work/texk"that appear to have nothing whatsoever to do with XeTeX, and a rather smaller number under "Work/utils" and elsewhere. How do I even start to try to identify why things failed, and why do I now have all these new, seemingly unwanted, directories ?
As an aside, "configure" is extraordinarily verbose : can I not send the 99.9% of "OK" or "GOOD" messages elsewhere and see only "FAILED" messages on my screen ?
Sub-directory listing of "Work/texk" :
>
> * afm2pl
> * bibtex-x
> * chktex
> * cjkutils
> * detex
> * dtl
> * dvi2tty
> * dvidvi
> * dviljk
> * dvipdfm-x
> * dvipng
> * dvipos
> * dvipsk
> * dvisvgm
> * gregorio
> * gsftopk
> * kpathsea
> * lcdf-typetools
> * makeindexk
> * makejvf
> * mendexk
> * musixtnt
> * ps2pk
> * psutils
> * ptexenc
> * seetexk
> * tex4htk
> * texlive
> * ttf2pk2
> * ttfdump
> * upmendex
> * web2c
> * xdvik
>
Sub-directory listing of "Work/utils" :
* autosp
* devnag
* lacheck
* m-tx
* pmx
* ps2eps
* t1utils
* texdoctk
* tpic2pdftex
* vlna
* xindy
* xpdfopen
** Phil.
--
Philip Taylor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/attachments/20160702/17bc98d8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 12104 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/attachments/20160702/17bc98d8/attachment-0001.jpe>
More information about the tex-live
mailing list