2

When compiling this minimal TeX file with lualatex --shell-escape test.tex I get an initial shell error (that is output to stderr), sh: all: command not found (check in the 7th line).

The error doesn't occur when not using --shell-escape or when using pdflatex --shell-escape.

Is this pointing to some problem with LuaLaTeX? Is there a workaround for this?

I am using TeXLive 2017 from Fedora 28.

$ lualatex -shell-escape test.tex
This is LuaTeX, Version 1.0.4 (TeX Live 2017) 
 system commands enabled.
(./test.tex
LaTeX2e <2017-04-15>
(using write cache: /home/user/.texlive2017/texmf-var/luatex-cache/generic)(
using read cache: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-var/luatex-cache/generic /home/user
/.texlive2017/texmf-var/luatex-cache/generic)sh: all: command not found

luaotfload | main : initialization completed in 0.117 seconds
Babel <3.9r> and hyphenation patterns for 1 language(s) loaded.
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/article.cls
Document Class: article 2014/09/29 v1.4h Standard LaTeX document class
(/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base/size10.clo(load luc: /home/user
/.texlive2017/texmf-var/luatex-cache/generic/fonts/otl/lmroman10-regular.luc))
) (./test.aux) [1{/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.
map}] (./test.aux))
 353 words of node memory still in use:
   2 hlist, 1 vlist, 1 rule, 2 glue, 3 attribute, 45 glue_spec, 3 attribute_lis
t, 1 write nodes
   avail lists: 1:1,2:15,3:2,4:1,5:21,6:5,7:12,8:1,9:6
</usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/fonts/opentype/public/lm/lmroman10-regular.otf>
Output written on test.pdf (1 page, 2522 bytes).
Transcript written on test.log.

test.tex:

\documentclass{article}
\title{title}
\author{auth}
\begin{document}
aaa
\end{document}
alfC
  • 14,350
  • @HenriMenke, I removed all these directories, one by one until I deleted ~/.textlive2017 and I still get the error. – alfC Sep 09 '18 at 23:09
  • 1
    This thread reports the same problem: https://www.tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2017-April/039886.html (in particular this message https://www.tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2017-April/039890.html). Apparently this is a bug which has been fixed long ago, so your distribution is outdated. – Henri Menke Sep 09 '18 at 23:30
  • 1
    This is the commit which should have fixed it: https://github.com/TeX-Live/luatex/commit/87c4c363b001874f48241037556b5b4aa013b149 – Henri Menke Sep 09 '18 at 23:36
  • I wonder what would be the all command? This the TeXLive 2017 distributed with the last Fedora. – alfC Sep 09 '18 at 23:37
  • TeX Live support on Fedora is notoriously garbage (cf. https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/430121/how-to-prevent-fedora-28s-texlive-packager-interfering-with-my-freedom-to-maint) – Henri Menke Sep 09 '18 at 23:40
  • 1
    I checked https://pkgs.org/download/texlive-luatex-bin and it looks like Fedora 28 is shipping a pretest version LuaTeX, either svn41091 (TeX Live 2016 pretest) in “Fedora 28” or 20170520 (TeX Live 2017 pretest) in “Fedora 28 Updates”. – Henri Menke Sep 09 '18 at 23:57
  • 4
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this bug never made it into a release version of TeX Live and has long been fixed. The underlying issue is that Fedora ships outdated binaries from buggy TeX Live pretest versions. – Henri Menke Sep 09 '18 at 23:58
  • 1
    I also found a way to reproduce the issue using the Fedora 28 Docker container: docker run -it --rm fedora:28 /bin/bash -c "dnf -y install texlive-latex; echo '\csname @@end\endcsname' > test.tex; lualatex --shell-escape test.tex" The package version claims to be 20170520 (which should have the bug fixed) but when I run the example, the LaTeX format reports 2017-04-15 (which does not have the bug fixed). So it seems that on top of shipping outdated pretest versions, they can't even get the timestamps right. – Henri Menke Sep 10 '18 at 00:19
  • 1
    I checked the source package texlive-base-20170520-41.fc28.src.rpm which is used to build LuaTeX and found catalogue-date 2017-04-18 05:31:40 +0200 in the file luatex.tlpobj, which is one day before the bug was reported and fixed. – Henri Menke Sep 10 '18 at 00:37
  • Thank you for all the work. I think the question will be useful to any Fedora users. What Linux distro plays well with texlive? Debian? If you concert any of the comments as answer I will accept it. – alfC Sep 10 '18 at 00:40
  • Well, this problem has mostly to do with Fedora's packaging and not so much with TeX/LaTeX. It would be more appropriate to file a bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ than posting an answer here. As per Linux and TeX Live interplay, I have never had any problems on Debian and Ubuntu. For those, there is also an excellent guide here: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/1092/how-to-install-vanilla-texlive-on-debian-or-ubuntu – Henri Menke Sep 10 '18 at 00:46
  • I understand from this discussion that Fedora doesn't use release versions of TeXLive, but development versions. I find this strange in itself and a good fact to know. – alfC Sep 10 '18 at 05:28
  • Their packaging is also bad beyond belief if you want to install vanilla. – cfr Nov 28 '18 at 03:02
  • @cfr how so (and how does that affect vanilla?)? Mind you I haven't used fedora in years and we've always installed vanilla on our redhat systems before they were replaced with Ubuntu – daleif Nov 28 '18 at 07:18
  • 1
    @daleif If you don't want a double-installation, you now have to name pretty much every possible individual package in your dummy .spec because the packaging is completely fragmented and nothing like providing a meta-package dummy works - you've got to list the lot. And if you don't like it, they tell you you should use their crappy packages anyway and what are you doing disloyally daring to install something different on your own computer?! (And of course, updates are going to be fraught with this kind of config.) – cfr Nov 29 '18 at 03:11

0 Answers0