Hi all,

since I need latex for my work regularly and all older pdflatex ports does not work I compiled the TeXLive 2012 distrubution on my MorphOS machine. Had to change some things, but seems to work. Before I want to upload it somewhere (e.g. Aminet) I would ask someone to test it since it works on my machine but maybe I forgot something in the archive or I have something special on my machine.

Problem: the archive has a size of 1.6 GB (.tar.gz2). Directly downloading from my own server is maybe a bit too slow, my upload is only 384 kbit/s. Maybe I should use a sharehoster? But I do not want to split it up in hundreds of smaller archives. Does anybody have an other idea?

Now, what works?
Anything related to tex, latex, pdftex, pdflatex etc. Also all feature loaded packages I've tested work (e.g. pgfplots, tikz, amsmath, beamer etc.).
Also bibtex works. So that's all I need.

What does not work?
Anything that needs ghostscript (seems that ghostscript does not work well on my system). That includes dvipdfm, epstopdf etc.
Also most scripts refer to /usr/bin/env, that cannot be undestood by the unix environment. Removing that from the first line of the scripts solves the problem, but I did not check every single script, since I do not need the most. Maybe I will do it later.
Also luatex and xetex does not compile at the moment. Some other tools also, mainly the unicode stuff as far as I can see, e.g. bibtexu.

One issue: If your tex files need missing fonts, the font files are converted as usual, but then pdftex complains that they do not exist and exits. That's no problem, just compile again until all fonts are created, then compiling works.

Edit: It is now available for download here.

[ Editiert durch ciVic 09.07.2013 - 08:35 ]

Last time I tried TeX years ago, but I can test it with cyryllic texts.

Hi!
This looks like a very good news.
I would certainly like to test it with some of my docs. Have to write TeX documents sometimes, need a PC then.

I dont have much use for TEX but I would bewilling to do some tests for you on my systems if you like. Just let me know.

The MorphOs Developer Guide is totally made In Tex.
The Source is also available, which could be a good test case.

Compiles flawlessly on my MorphOS machine. Only issue: pdflatex is normally pdftex with the option --progname=pdflatex. The usual way on an Amiga in the past was to create an alias:

Code:

But this does not work for makefiles. So I had to exchange the pdflatex commands manually. If someone knows a good solution...

Here is the archive (1.5 GByte):

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1_z4CcBsowOUjRRTVE3U2N0dnM/edit?usp=sharing

Simply extract it, double click on "Startup TeX" and you should be able to compile the example or (after the makefile changes) the MorphOS Developer Documentation.

Ans if somebody else is able to use it I will publish it on Aminet or MorphZone (or both?).

I will test it this evening and give you feeback afterwards.

I could not download it with OWB.
Why is archive 1,5 gb big?

[ Edited by eliot 17.06.2013 - 17:39 ]

I am also not able to download it with OWB, seems to be a problem with OWB and the overloaded google page. Can anybody download it with another browser?

And it has 1.5GB since it is the complete TeXLive 2012 distribution. I could do it like the other tex distributions for the amiga, only providing bin and source and the other files must be downloaded elsewhere (together also 1.5 GB). But then the user would have do to many steps before it works. I've read many threads that it can take 2 weeks until they had it running. And I was completely unable to get it running, don't know why. So I decided to make it as simple as possible.

I have downloaded the archive on Windows machine, then converted to lha and copied it through FTP to MorphOS.
Unfortunately, I am unable to run pdftex. I am using command line and I get:

Code:

Obviously, I've executed "Startup TeX" before.

Is it necessary to use the makefile? It needs make, so it seems that MOS SDK is required?
BTW, I have noticed that some files in the 'bin' directory refer to /DH0/TexLive, is this intentional? Thus I've put it into a DH0 directory.

I have download it with good old FF (thank you, Genesi, for Ubuntu 10.10 in 2013 :)), and still waiting for dearch .bz2.

It works!!!

But I had to change working directory to 'bin'.
So a command
Code:
compiled the file, but did not include its graphics (which was also in RAM:).
I have added one line to veryshortguide.tex:
Code:
(just behind \usepackage's) and it now compiles into a pdf with the graphic file included.

Thank you ciVic!
I will test it also with my documents soon.

It seems that something during the make process on my machine saves the path where it was compiled. I will check that. Could you please check that the assigns in the "start tex" are correct? tex: should be your texlive dir. And I will also check if it cannot find the gfx if pdftex is not started in the directory where the images are.

Yes, assigns are correct, after issuing 'assign' command I see amongst others:
Code:
And the message in one of my above posts is an effect of running pdftex, i.e., if pdftex was not in the path, the output would be 'pdftex: Unknown command'.

I am mow extracting it on my system. But I cannot see something refering to dh0. Where exactly did you see that? Was it a symbolic link? And does anybody else have this problems?

When I was trying to run it for the first time, I was browsing through the files and opening some of them in a text editor.
In TeXLive/bin there are many small files consisting of one line of text (describing a directory), it is possible that they are symbolic links (I am not sure). The first one is 'a2ping'.

Yes, that should be symlinks. But extracting it on my linux machine or MorphOS machine I only get empty files instead of symlinks. I tried again to create archives containing valid symbolic links, but whatever I've tried, they are somhow corrupt. They are relative, maybe tar is unable on an Amiga to understand that. Instead of ../texmf I get bin/..texmf or even worse.

I have just verified two other documents.
The first one uses latex class 'endm'. Included packages are algorithm, algorithmic, amstext.
It compiles. The situation is the same as with graphics: endm.cls could not be found, even though I had it in RAM: together with tex source. TeX asked me where it is and it went on:
Code:
It also gave me a rather typical message, which I guess has no impact on the output pdf:
Code:
So the pdf was correctly built.

The second of my documents uses an ieee class (IEEEtran) and even though I was ready to provide the necessary files, this time I was not asked where they are. They are commonly used, so perhaps they are already inside the TeXLive distribution.
Included packages were: cite, graphicx, epstopdf, amsmath, amsthm, amstext, amssymb, float.
This document contains 5 eps images. As you've said, epstopdf probably does not work. I got two or three system requesters of the form "Please insert volume usr in any drive" (and sbin, and bin IIRC). And the output pdf had no images.
However, when I have placed their "eps-converted-to.pdf" versions in RAM:, it has built completely (i.e., with images).
I have added RAM: as a path to graphics, as in the first included example.

I think I have it. Please replace the content of your startup tex file with the following:

Code:

Then you can start pdftex in the dir with your main tex file, and then also the "cannot find" problems should also be gone.

Yes, now it is possible to run pdftex when being in RAM:, where the tex sources are.
I've verified one more document, based on amsproc class, including packages: amsmath, amsthm, amsfonts, amssymb, inputenc, geometry, enumerate, fancyheadings. (Well, even though the packages are included, I don't remember if they are actually used).
It compiles with no problems.
My only doubt is the final layout of the documents, seems a little bit different than on Windows. Maybe it is normal that under various operating systems, or in various TeX distributions, some layout details differ (e.g., spacings between consecutive lines or margins, or figure placement rules, or something like that).

Strange. I one of your previous posts you wrote that you are using eps files, so I assume normally you use latex, not pdflatex. Maybe that makes the difference.

I am no such expert on TeX to distinguish that. In TeXworks on Windows, I always thought the green button results in invoking pdflatex on my setup. Now I've looked into its configuration and its "pdfLaTeX" option is associated with a program called texify.exe, a part of MikTeX.
The use of eps graphics was most probably possible due to epstopdf package.

OK, got it, it is a matter of a class version.
Before the updated "Startup Tex" my doc compiled using IEEEtran.cls which is included in TeXLive (1.7a).
After the modification in "Startup Tex" it takes IEEEtran.cls which is where my sources are (1.8).
And the output pdf looks identical as on Windows.
Sorry for the confusion.

Great work!!! MorphOS can now easily be used to typeset documents in TeX!!!

Using updated "Startup TeX" I compiled document with \usepackage[cp1251] (and text in cp1251 codeset) without errors. Pdf looks as expected.

Also, I tried to compile with \usepackage[utf8] (and text in utf8). Pdf was compiled, but some letters was ignored
(
! Package inputenc Error: Unicode char \u 8:\GenericError {(inputenc)}
{Package inputenc Error: Unicode char \u8:Ð? not set up for use with LaTeX}
{See the inputenc package documentation for explanation.}{Your command was i gnored.
)
May be, it is necessary to use special commands. But I don't need utf8, so...

Thank you for your work!!!

Well, I still use AmigaTeX on my machines (see here).

Now I have verified that TeXLive works really fine and compiles all my old and new scientific papers. And of course it is extremely uptodate (AmigaTEX is 25 years old!).

Thank you ciVic.