Re: [AUCTeX] Unprivileged install

[Vladimir Lomov]

Hello,
** Philipp Haselwarter [2011-10-09 15:17:18 +0200]:

> Hey Vladimir,

> Vladimir Lomov <address@hidden> writes:

>> Hello,
>> ** Philipp Haselwarter [2011-10-06 16:56:18 +0200]:

>>> I'm running arch linux, here's the output of tex --version:

> ---8<---[snipped 50 lines: my setup]---8<---

>>> I feel like I must have missed something obvious, it can hardly be so
>>> difficult to get auctex installed in $HOME, especially as the manual
>>> explicitly discusses the topic – further ideas and suggestions are
>>> appreciated!

>> All is fine here: Archlinux, ghostscript compiled from git.

>> It took time to install Archlinux in VirtualBox and test your settings.
>> Now I see the same picture that you point out last time. However, if you
>> click right button of mouse on sign "STOP" and choose "View error"
>> you'll see that there is NOTHING wrong with your AUCTeX installation
>> but the problem with ghostscript.

>> There were nasty bugs in some 9.0x versions of ghostscript of 9.0x.

> Thanks for going through such great lengths and testing on arch!
> The problem does indeed seem to be with ghostscript. Fortunately, my
> university hasn't updated their installs in ~5 years:
> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
> % ghostscript --version
> 8.15.2
> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
> Previewing works fine there.

> On arch, the Arch User Repositories contain a ghostscript-svn package,
> but after building and installing it, it turns out that it provides
> gs 9.03 which seems to suffer from the same troubles.
> I guess I'll just have to wait for a new release of preview­latex or
> ghostscript.

If you are allowed to run sudo on target system with Archlinux, you may try this
https://raw.github.com/vp1981/pkgbuild/master/ghostscript/PKGBUILD

Or, if you are the experienced Linux user you can install GS-git into $HOME and
set up PATH correctly.

---
WBR, Vladimir Lomov

-- 
        The big problem with pornography is defining it.  You can't just
say it's pictures of people naked.  For example, you have these
primitive African tribes that exist by chasing the wildebeest on foot,
and they have to go around largely naked, because, as the old tribal
saying goes: "N'wam k'honi soit qui mali," which means, "If you think
you can catch a wildebeest in this climate and wear clothes at the same
time, then I have some beach front property in the desert region of
Northern Mali that you may be interested in."
        So it's not considered pornographic when National Geographic
publishes color photographs of these people hunting the wildebeest
naked, or pounding one rock onto another rock for some primitive reason
naked, or whatever.  But if National Geographic were to publish an
article entitled "The Girls of the California Junior College System
Hunt the Wildebeest Naked," some people would call it pornography.  But
others would not.  And still others, such as the Spectacularly Rev.
Jerry Falwell, would get upset about seeing the wildebeest naked.
                -- Dave Barry, "Pornography"