Roland Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I've installed TeXLive 2007 to use /usr/local/texlive/2007 as its prefix
> and data directory, and that works fine. Everything is contained
> within that tree. It does not put things in /etc or /usr/local/etc if
> you do this. What you do need to do after building the binaries is add
> /usr/local/texlive/2007/bin/<arch>-unknown-freebsd<version> to the path
> in /etc/login.conf.
I am considering giving a try to TeXlive these days. I take the
opportunity of this thread to ask you about your strategy to make the
TeXlive system cohabit with ports that wants teTeX.
Some ports want teTeX. If one installs both teTeX and TeXlive, one
should arrange so that TeXlive's bin directory comes before teTeX's
bin directory (/usr/local/bin), otherwise teTeX's binaries are used
instead of TeXlive's and this is not what is wanted. Is this the way
The second question is about ports that install TeX related stuff
(such as macro packages, like NOWEB do). I guess you edited texmf.cnf
to let /usr/local/share/texmf-local appear in TEXMF trees. Am I right,
and was this enough to let things run well?
To consider more FreeBSD specific issues, I have read elsethread that
some people are working on porting TeXlive to FreeBSD. When this
(awesome) work will be done, FreeBSD users will have two options to
install a TeX system from the ports: teTeX and TeXlive. These two
systems provide similar service. In such a situation, how are managed
the dependencies? How would a porter say ``This port run-depends on a
TeX system, no matter which one it is''?
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"