On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 23:25, Peter Münster wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> > - or setuptex should be rather an executable, that prints out the >> > environment to apply, then one would do something like this: >> > eval `setuptex` >> > (cleaner solution, but some work to do and all minimal-users must change >> > their habits...) >> >> I theory adjusting PATH should do, but it's a nice proposal :) > > So TEXMFCACHE and TEXMFOS are not needed? > And what about the praxis in contrast do the theory? > > Here my little test: > unset TEXMFOS > unset TEXMFCACHE > context test > -> MTXrun | unknown script 'context.lua' or 'mtx-context.lua'
I left TEXMFCACHE variable as an excuse for not adding texmfcnf.lua to the distribution. (Though in theory it's still not needed, you just need to regenerate the database since LuaTeX doesn't know about the location of your old cache.) I have added the file now. I guess that TEXMFOS is not needed either. A month ago I decided to clean up setuptex a bit and removed everything but PATH setting ... and then the lack of TEXMFOS has destroyed the whole evening trying to figure out why it worked on everyone's machine but mine ... The bug has been fixed though, so ... if you update now to fetch that additional file ... does it work then? If yes, I'll remove the two remaining variables from setuptex. (I might be offline for a longer period though.) Mojca ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : email@example.com / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________