On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 09:58:13 -0800
Kenward Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is the difference between the two for most of us users out here,
> and is there a reason to switch outside of a package's dependency (which
> I saw for one I was interested in, FWIW)? It doesn't sound like any
>
On Mon, 2007-01-15 at 17:05 +0100, Helge Hafting wrote:
> David L. Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:59:57 +0100
> > Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> abdelkader belahcene wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>> since the new available latex on linux, will be texlive instead
David L. Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:59:57 +0100
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
abdelkader belahcene wrote:
Hi,
since the new available latex on linux, will be texlive instead of
tetex, I think it 's time to support the texlive instead of tetex.
[ Now the required
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:59:57 +0100
Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abdelkader belahcene wrote:
> > Hi,
> > since the new available latex on linux, will be texlive instead of
> > tetex, I think it 's time to support the texlive instead of tetex.
> > [ Now the required latex for lyx 1.4
abdelkader belahcene wrote:
Hi,
since the new available latex on linux, will be texlive instead of
tetex, I think it 's time to support the texlive instead of tetex.
[ Now the required latex for lyx 1.4.2 (is tetex) ] or I am wrong ??
I have been using LyX with texlive for half a year now.
Thi
On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 09:38:41AM +0100, abdelkader belahcene wrote:
> Hi,
> since the new available latex on linux, will be texlive instead of
> tetex, I think it 's time to support the texlive instead of tetex.
> [ Now the required latex for lyx 1.4.2 (is tetex) ] or I am wrong ??
AFAIK LyX wo