Update Request: texlive 2024-20241027 → 2024-final

[xworld21]

Nixpkgs version

• Unstable (25.05)

Package name

texlive

Upstream version

2024-final

Nixpkgs version

2024-20241027

Changelog

No response

Notify maintainers

Just to say, I have started compiling. Hopefully this won't require many tweaks. I am also updating the binaries to svn 73771 (branch '2024.final').

@veprbl

---

Note for maintainers: Please tag this issue in your pull request description. (i.e. Resolves #ISSUE.)

I assert that this issue is relevant for Nixpkgs

• I assert that this package update does not yet exist in an open pull request or in Nixpkgs Unstable.
• I assert that this is not a duplicate of any known issue.
• I assert that I have read the NixOS Code of Conduct and agree to abide by it.

Is this issue important to you?

Add a 👍 reaction to issues you find important.

[xworld21]

I am getting a very worrying error when compiling LuaTeX on Darwin:

ld: malformed 64-bit a.b.c.d.e version number: 4.81742

because 81742 > 1023.

I am sure there is a simple fix for this but I don't know what it is.

[veprbl]

Is this visible on nixpkgs master?

[xworld21]

Is this visible on nixpkgs master?

No, I haven't had enough time to complete the PR. I got the binaries to compile (libs/LuaJIT was the only source of problems), but there are still small things to be done about some new scripts unfortunately. I'll get something out this week.

Regarding 81742 > 1023: I fixed that by truncating the version number differently, to 367 (which at least will be monotonic, unlike Luigi's choice). I suppose this is a quirk of Nixpkgs Darwin because the issue hasn't popped anywhere else.

[veprbl]

I don't understand why are binaries updated. Would not that make us pick up early texlive 2025?

[xworld21]

I don't understand why are binaries updated. Would not that make us pick up early texlive 2025?

Yes, I made the mistake of moving the binaries to 2024.final... I am trying again with the original 2024.2.