> (Incidentally, pTeX itself is also available in texlive, with the > texlive-lang-cjk port, but I haven't tried it myself.)
pTeX in TeX Live 2010 works well in many cases. I believe most of pTeX users can shift to TeX Live 2010. Strictly speaking, pTeX in TeX Live 2010 is not upper compatible with port:pTeX. For instances, - texlive-lang-cjk doesn't contain pLaTeX 2.09 due to its license issues. That is, TeX Live 2010 cannot handle Japanese LaTeX 2.09 documents. (see also: canna +pdfdoc) - otf.sty is not installed. It's a technical problem. VF files in otf.sty cannot be compiled with ovp2ovf 2.1 yet. - updmap(-sys) doesn't have KanjiMap features. - xdvi cannot preview Japanese DVI files. So I guess some dyed-in-the-wool TeX users will still keep using port:pTeX. > Some examples that have come up recently > are revtex (#27709) and tex-mh (#27795). It looks like most of the > tex-* ports fall into this category too. > > I'm inclined to go through these and mark the abandoned ones as > replaced_by the appropriate texlive port. This would ensure we'd have a > reasonably up-to-date version. Are there any objections to this? > teTeX is sufficiently obsolete itself > that we probably shouldn't expend any effort worrying about it, but > pTeX is still used. Not sure if this will be an issue for ptex users? Originally, to use imaxima with pTeX I wrote tex-mh port. Because pTeX doesn't have breqn. How about change the port name from tex-mh to ptex-mh to avoid the confusion? I was also using tex-tipa, tex-cm-super, tex-utopia and tex-fourier-gutenberg. If I can, I'd like to change these names to ptex-* in the same way as. I don't have any idea about revtex. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
