Re: a question on setuptex

[Pablo Rodriguez <oinos@gmx.es>]

On 02/18/2017 10:23 AM, Hans Hagen wrote:
> On 2/17/2017 11:49 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>> On 17 February 2017 at 23:38, Pablo Rodriguez wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Of course, it makes sense in that case that a ConTeXt Suite with 64bit
>>> binaries is preferred. But as a fallback, 32bit binaries should be fine.
>>
>> It should work in principle. Just set "platform=linux" before calling
>> mtx-update.lua and disable '--make'. (You could in principle also call
>> rsync manually.) And then all you need to do is set the PATH to
>> binaries.
>>
>> The problem is that unless something changed, mtxrun will most likely
>> be causing you some troubles and will insist in fetching x86_64 (I'm
>> not sure how to completely avoid that).
> 
> maybe putting 32 bit bins in the 64 bit directory works ..

Many thanks for your replies, Alan, Mojca and Hans.

Sorry, I still think it shouldn’t be that complex.

In setuptex.bat we have:

    set TEXMFOS=%~s1texmf-mswin-64
    if exist %TEXMFOS%\bin\mtxrun.exe goto start
    [...]
    set TEXMFOS=%~s1\texmf-win32
    if exist %TEXMFOS%\bin\mtxrun.exe goto start

What prevents in setuptex to also check for the path of the binaries and
go to Linux32 when the path for Linux64 binaries doesn’t exist?

Many thanks for your help,


Pablo
-- 
http://www.ousia.tk
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://context.aanhet.net
archive  : https://bitbucket.org/phg/context-mirror/commits/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________