Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. I used those rpms because they don't insist on installing tetex as a dependency (rpms don't see non-rpms) and erasing TL tetex (2nd) and originally because that was all I could find. They worked just fine. You were lucky. Maybe the Bakoma fonts should be in extras along with math-ml fonts? They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. -- Rex p.s. No need to CC me, I'm already on the list.
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/14/05, Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. In order to update the Wiki site, the above information, Rex, is valid for all Fedora Cores (FC1, FC2, FC3 and FC4)? Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On 9/14/05, Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. In order to update the Wiki site, the above information, Rex, is valid for all Fedora Cores (FC1, FC2, FC3 and FC4)? Paul SH: I wondered about this too. The older latex-xft-fonts share the same filename(s ,7) with the newer Bakoma and Mathml packages. But they don't have the same file size except for wasy10.ttf It appears to me that Mathml includes the latex-xft-fonts package filesizes and none (that I noticed) of the Bakoma font package filesizes (where the filenames are the same) except for wasy10.ttf I didn't think researching each Fedora core release was necessary. Directory of C:\tempsafe bakoma-lyx fonts 09/14/2005 02:41 PM DIR . 09/14/2005 02:41 PMDIR .. 09/14/2005 02:41 PM 0 bakoma.txt 01/17/2005 08:48 AM21,092 cmex10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:39 AM32,556 cmmi10.ttf* 01/17/2005 08:50 AM26,348 cmr10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:41 AM29,392 cmsy10.ttf* 06/20/2005 08:27 AM 1,474 Licence.txt 01/18/2005 08:42 AM28,388 msam10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:37 AM37,720 msbm10.ttf* 06/20/2005 12:40 PM 1,900 Readme.txt 07/22/2003 07:07 PM25,104 wasy10.ttf* 13 File(s)222,194 bytes 2 Dir(s) 5,252,497,408 bytes free Content of RPM : /usr/libexec/mathml-fonts/find_symbol_font.sh /usr/share/fonts/mathml /usr/share/fonts/mathml/SY__.PFB /usr/share/fonts/mathml/Symbol.pfa /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmbx10.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmex10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmmi10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmr10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmsy10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/fonts.cache-1 /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math1___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math2___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math4___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/msam10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/msbm10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/mtextra.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/wasy10.ttf* Content delivered by yum install of LyX dependency Mathml drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Sep 12 20:14 . drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 4096 Sep 12 20:14 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25912 Nov 7 2004 cmbx10.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15396 Jul 22 2003 cmex10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27120 Jul 22 2003 cmmi10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 21804 Jul 22 2003 cmr10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22132 Jul 22 2003 cmsy10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3710 Sep 12 20:14 fonts.cache-1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 59593 Jun 14 2001 math1___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 45412 Jun 14 2001 math2___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 57486 Jun 14 2001 math4___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22132 Jul 22 2003 msam10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 30312 Jul 22 2003 msbm10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27092 Nov 7 2004 mtextra.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25104 Jul 22 2003 wasy10.ttf* + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /linux/fedora/SOURCES/mathml-fonts /latex-xft-fonts-0.1.tar.gz + tar -xvvf - 0 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/ - 15396 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmex10.ttf* - 27120 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmmi10.ttf* 21804 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmr10.ttf* 22132 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmsy10.ttf* 22132 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/msam10.ttf* -30312 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/msbm10.ttf* 25104 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/wasy10.ttf* 604 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/Makefile 474 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/README Regards, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. I used those rpms because they don't insist on installing tetex as a dependency (rpms don't see non-rpms) and erasing TL tetex (2nd) and originally because that was all I could find. They worked just fine. You were lucky. Maybe the Bakoma fonts should be in extras along with math-ml fonts? They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. -- Rex p.s. No need to CC me, I'm already on the list.
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/14/05, Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. In order to update the Wiki site, the above information, Rex, is valid for all Fedora Cores (FC1, FC2, FC3 and FC4)? Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On 9/14/05, Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. In order to update the Wiki site, the above information, Rex, is valid for all Fedora Cores (FC1, FC2, FC3 and FC4)? Paul SH: I wondered about this too. The older latex-xft-fonts share the same filename(s ,7) with the newer Bakoma and Mathml packages. But they don't have the same file size except for wasy10.ttf It appears to me that Mathml includes the latex-xft-fonts package filesizes and none (that I noticed) of the Bakoma font package filesizes (where the filenames are the same) except for wasy10.ttf I didn't think researching each Fedora core release was necessary. Directory of C:\tempsafe bakoma-lyx fonts 09/14/2005 02:41 PM DIR . 09/14/2005 02:41 PMDIR .. 09/14/2005 02:41 PM 0 bakoma.txt 01/17/2005 08:48 AM21,092 cmex10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:39 AM32,556 cmmi10.ttf* 01/17/2005 08:50 AM26,348 cmr10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:41 AM29,392 cmsy10.ttf* 06/20/2005 08:27 AM 1,474 Licence.txt 01/18/2005 08:42 AM28,388 msam10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:37 AM37,720 msbm10.ttf* 06/20/2005 12:40 PM 1,900 Readme.txt 07/22/2003 07:07 PM25,104 wasy10.ttf* 13 File(s)222,194 bytes 2 Dir(s) 5,252,497,408 bytes free Content of RPM : /usr/libexec/mathml-fonts/find_symbol_font.sh /usr/share/fonts/mathml /usr/share/fonts/mathml/SY__.PFB /usr/share/fonts/mathml/Symbol.pfa /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmbx10.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmex10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmmi10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmr10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmsy10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/fonts.cache-1 /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math1___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math2___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math4___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/msam10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/msbm10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/mtextra.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/wasy10.ttf* Content delivered by yum install of LyX dependency Mathml drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Sep 12 20:14 . drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 4096 Sep 12 20:14 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25912 Nov 7 2004 cmbx10.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15396 Jul 22 2003 cmex10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27120 Jul 22 2003 cmmi10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 21804 Jul 22 2003 cmr10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22132 Jul 22 2003 cmsy10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3710 Sep 12 20:14 fonts.cache-1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 59593 Jun 14 2001 math1___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 45412 Jun 14 2001 math2___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 57486 Jun 14 2001 math4___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22132 Jul 22 2003 msam10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 30312 Jul 22 2003 msbm10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27092 Nov 7 2004 mtextra.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25104 Jul 22 2003 wasy10.ttf* + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /linux/fedora/SOURCES/mathml-fonts /latex-xft-fonts-0.1.tar.gz + tar -xvvf - 0 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/ - 15396 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmex10.ttf* - 27120 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmmi10.ttf* 21804 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmr10.ttf* 22132 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmsy10.ttf* 22132 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/msam10.ttf* -30312 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/msbm10.ttf* 25104 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/wasy10.ttf* 604 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/Makefile 474 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/README Regards, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: "Rex Dieter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. I used those rpms because they don't insist on installing tetex as a dependency (rpms don't see non-rpms) and erasing TL tetex (2nd) and originally because that was all I could find. They worked just fine. You were lucky. Maybe the Bakoma fonts should be in extras along with math-ml fonts? They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. -- Rex p.s. No need to CC me, I'm already on the list.
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/14/05, Rex Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. In order to update the Wiki site, the above information, Rex, is valid for all Fedora Cores (FC1, FC2, FC3 and FC4)? Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: "Paul Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 1:54 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On 9/14/05, Rex Dieter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: They are included *in* the mathml-fonts package. In order to update the Wiki site, the above information, Rex, is valid for all Fedora Cores (FC1, FC2, FC3 and FC4)? Paul SH: I wondered about this too. The older latex-xft-fonts share the same filename(s ,7) with the newer Bakoma and Mathml packages. But they don't have the same file size except for wasy10.ttf It appears to me that Mathml includes the latex-xft-fonts package filesizes and none (that I noticed) of the Bakoma font package filesizes (where the filenames are the same) except for wasy10.ttf I didn't think researching each Fedora core release was necessary. Directory of C:\tempsafe bakoma-lyx fonts 09/14/2005 02:41 PM . 09/14/2005 02:41 PM .. 09/14/2005 02:41 PM 0 bakoma.txt 01/17/2005 08:48 AM21,092 cmex10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:39 AM32,556 cmmi10.ttf* 01/17/2005 08:50 AM26,348 cmr10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:41 AM29,392 cmsy10.ttf* 06/20/2005 08:27 AM 1,474 Licence.txt 01/18/2005 08:42 AM28,388 msam10.ttf* 01/18/2005 08:37 AM37,720 msbm10.ttf* 06/20/2005 12:40 PM 1,900 Readme.txt 07/22/2003 07:07 PM25,104 wasy10.ttf* 13 File(s)222,194 bytes 2 Dir(s) 5,252,497,408 bytes free Content of RPM : /usr/libexec/mathml-fonts/find_symbol_font.sh /usr/share/fonts/mathml /usr/share/fonts/mathml/SY__.PFB /usr/share/fonts/mathml/Symbol.pfa /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmbx10.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmex10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmmi10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmr10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/cmsy10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/fonts.cache-1 /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math1___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math2___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/math4___.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/msam10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/msbm10.ttf* /usr/share/fonts/mathml/mtextra.ttf /usr/share/fonts/mathml/wasy10.ttf* Content delivered by yum install of LyX dependency Mathml drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Sep 12 20:14 . drwxr-xr-x 10 root root 4096 Sep 12 20:14 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25912 Nov 7 2004 cmbx10.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 15396 Jul 22 2003 cmex10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27120 Jul 22 2003 cmmi10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 21804 Jul 22 2003 cmr10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22132 Jul 22 2003 cmsy10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3710 Sep 12 20:14 fonts.cache-1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 59593 Jun 14 2001 math1___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 45412 Jun 14 2001 math2___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 57486 Jun 14 2001 math4___.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 22132 Jul 22 2003 msam10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 30312 Jul 22 2003 msbm10.ttf* -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 27092 Nov 7 2004 mtextra.ttf -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25104 Jul 22 2003 wasy10.ttf* + /usr/bin/gzip -dc /linux/fedora/SOURCES/mathml-fonts /latex-xft-fonts-0.1.tar.gz + tar -xvvf - 0 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/ - 15396 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmex10.ttf* - 27120 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmmi10.ttf* 21804 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmr10.ttf* 22132 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/cmsy10.ttf* 22132 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/msam10.ttf* -30312 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/msbm10.ttf* 25104 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/wasy10.ttf* 604 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/Makefile 474 2003-07-22 12:07:10 latex-xft-fonts-0.1/README Regards, Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen P. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:53 PM Subject: Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Stephen == Stephen P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I get it: you generate your messages with the automatic insult letter generator! Could you give me the URL please? The one I had does not work anymore... Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Do as I say, not as I do. JMarc PS: Cool it, please.
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen == Stephen P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Stephen Do as I say, not as I do. Let's forget about it, then :) The points that interest me in that discussion are: - the fact that the tetex rpms might not be of very good quality on RH. This is not an anathema, AFAIK. Actually, I think P. Flynn knows more about (La)TeX that anyone else I know on this list (Herbert Voss excepted, maybe; I am going to piss of the other TeXnicians I forgot...), and his thoughts about this are appreciated. - we should try to build LyX in a way that allows for changing TeX distributions as easily as possible. In particularly, people who want to use the TeX Collection distribution should be able to do so with minimal hassle. - the code that searches for a latex executable was written by me at a time where LaTeX 2.09 was not uncommon. I can accept the fact that it is now completely inadequate. - the fact that configure is run at install time (and thus as root as Peter points out) is indeed a problem. It causes griefs to the windows installer too. I'll try to remove this for 1.4.1. Discussions about moral censure and ethics are an unneeded distraction in this context. JMarc
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs)
Stephen == Stephen P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Stephen Do as I say, not as I do. Let's forget about it, then :) The points that interest me in that discussion are: - the fact that the tetex rpms might not be of very good quality on RH. This is not an anathema, AFAIK. Actually, I think P. Flynn knows more about (La)TeX that anyone else I know on this list (Herbert Voss excepted, maybe; I am going to piss of the other TeXnicians I forgot...), and his thoughts about this are appreciated. SH: My credo is principles before personalities. P. Flynn may be an expert at (La)TeX but this required a different skill set. He didn't know about yum, /.lyx/preferences nor apparently about FC4 and rpms or Georg Baum wouldn't have posted explaining rpms to him. - we should try to build LyX in a way that allows for changing TeX distributions as easily as possible. In particularly, people who want to use the TeX Collection distribution should be able to do so with minimal hassle. SH: I certainly agree with this. I think FC4 might install its version of tetex by default. I had previously gotten Lyx1.3.6 to work with the FC4 provided tetex files. So it took me about 15 minutes to erase lyx and tetex +dependencies in preparation to installing the Tex 2004 dvd. I think one can do a custom install of FC4 and uncheck the tetex box(es) and avoid that chore. - the code that searches for a latex executable was written by me at a time where LaTeX 2.09 was not uncommon. I can accept the fact that it is now completely inadequate. SH: One needs to remember to put PATH=/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux:$PATH export PATH into .bashrc_profile as detailed in the TeX 2004 User Guide. Then installing LyX1.3.6 and Qt with the rpms was fairly uneventful. I had left the xft fonts and aiksaurus installed. So LyX fired up and looked OK. And the Tex Information displayed a lot of stuff. But when I tried to load currency.lyx, I got an error message about missing article.cls So I tried Reconfigure and that restored all the viewers (which were missing). I rebooted and Reconfigure hadn't stuck. Missing article.cls again. I checked the preferences file and it was empty except for the screen fonts section. From Windows I hunched this was a path problem. So I checked Edit Preferences--Paths and it was empty. Not even ImageMagick which is installed. So then I used Angus Leeming's time honored recipe of fiddling with Path_prefix echo $PATH which I cut and pasted into Path prefix(saved). Also put /usr/bin/xpdf in file formats to check on Paul Johnson's complaint (it worked ok). At any rate, this doesn't work like my Windows experience would lead me to expect. Now the changes I made showed up in the preferences file under Misc = the Linux Path, and I have one entry under Format section: \viewer pdf3 /usr/bin/xpdf - the fact that configure is run at install time (and thus as root as Peter points out) is indeed a problem. It causes griefs to the windows installer too. I'll try to remove this for 1.4.1. Discussions about moral censure and ethics are an unneeded distraction in this context. JMarc I agree. That is why I resented them being introduced (kludge and the suggestion that RH deliberately sabotaged TeX cd releases by PF) and then I was chastised for expressing my disapproval. Ridiculing that popinjay was a mild response. From FC4, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Flynn Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. -- Rex
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter Flynn wrote: Paul Smith wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. Bah, IMO, bad advice, and a borderline troll to boot. We have many happy users of the stock lyx/tetex packages here in our (Math) department (though i've had to rebuild a customized tetex to default to US/Letter paper instead of A4). -- Rex
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Stephen P. Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Flynn Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. -- Rex Originally, yum installed lyx 1.3.5. Someone said this was fixed about 3 weeks ago. The OP installed the Tex Live dvd. If you use yum, it overwrites the TL tetex installation. The OP's complaint was that RH rpms lagged at least a year behind the fixes in the Tex Live cd and so he did not want them overwritten. I used those rpms because they don't insist on installing tetex as a dependency (rpms don't see non-rpms) and erasing TL tetex (2nd) and originally because that was all I could find. They worked just fine. Maybe the Bakoma fonts should be in extras along with math-ml fonts? The default is A4. I changed it to US with texconfig --paper letter or some syntax close to that. Apparently there is antipathy towards the fedora tetex rpms on comp.text.tex and even if Peter Flynn is an expert on Latex, he doesn't need to carry his agenda into the lyx-user mailing list, IMO, especially since he did so without humor. Water under the bridge, Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Stephen P. Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:53 PM Subject: Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Stephen == Stephen P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I get it: you generate your messages with the automatic insult letter generator! Could you give me the URL please? The one I had does not work anymore... Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Do as I say, not as I do. JMarc PS: Cool it, please.
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen == Stephen P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Stephen Do as I say, not as I do. Let's forget about it, then :) The points that interest me in that discussion are: - the fact that the tetex rpms might not be of very good quality on RH. This is not an anathema, AFAIK. Actually, I think P. Flynn knows more about (La)TeX that anyone else I know on this list (Herbert Voss excepted, maybe; I am going to piss of the other TeXnicians I forgot...), and his thoughts about this are appreciated. - we should try to build LyX in a way that allows for changing TeX distributions as easily as possible. In particularly, people who want to use the TeX Collection distribution should be able to do so with minimal hassle. - the code that searches for a latex executable was written by me at a time where LaTeX 2.09 was not uncommon. I can accept the fact that it is now completely inadequate. - the fact that configure is run at install time (and thus as root as Peter points out) is indeed a problem. It causes griefs to the windows installer too. I'll try to remove this for 1.4.1. Discussions about moral censure and ethics are an unneeded distraction in this context. JMarc
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs)
Stephen == Stephen P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Stephen Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Stephen Do as I say, not as I do. Let's forget about it, then :) The points that interest me in that discussion are: - the fact that the tetex rpms might not be of very good quality on RH. This is not an anathema, AFAIK. Actually, I think P. Flynn knows more about (La)TeX that anyone else I know on this list (Herbert Voss excepted, maybe; I am going to piss of the other TeXnicians I forgot...), and his thoughts about this are appreciated. SH: My credo is principles before personalities. P. Flynn may be an expert at (La)TeX but this required a different skill set. He didn't know about yum, /.lyx/preferences nor apparently about FC4 and rpms or Georg Baum wouldn't have posted explaining rpms to him. - we should try to build LyX in a way that allows for changing TeX distributions as easily as possible. In particularly, people who want to use the TeX Collection distribution should be able to do so with minimal hassle. SH: I certainly agree with this. I think FC4 might install its version of tetex by default. I had previously gotten Lyx1.3.6 to work with the FC4 provided tetex files. So it took me about 15 minutes to erase lyx and tetex +dependencies in preparation to installing the Tex 2004 dvd. I think one can do a custom install of FC4 and uncheck the tetex box(es) and avoid that chore. - the code that searches for a latex executable was written by me at a time where LaTeX 2.09 was not uncommon. I can accept the fact that it is now completely inadequate. SH: One needs to remember to put PATH=/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux:$PATH export PATH into .bashrc_profile as detailed in the TeX 2004 User Guide. Then installing LyX1.3.6 and Qt with the rpms was fairly uneventful. I had left the xft fonts and aiksaurus installed. So LyX fired up and looked OK. And the Tex Information displayed a lot of stuff. But when I tried to load currency.lyx, I got an error message about missing article.cls So I tried Reconfigure and that restored all the viewers (which were missing). I rebooted and Reconfigure hadn't stuck. Missing article.cls again. I checked the preferences file and it was empty except for the screen fonts section. From Windows I hunched this was a path problem. So I checked Edit Preferences--Paths and it was empty. Not even ImageMagick which is installed. So then I used Angus Leeming's time honored recipe of fiddling with Path_prefix echo $PATH which I cut and pasted into Path prefix(saved). Also put /usr/bin/xpdf in file formats to check on Paul Johnson's complaint (it worked ok). At any rate, this doesn't work like my Windows experience would lead me to expect. Now the changes I made showed up in the preferences file under Misc = the Linux Path, and I have one entry under Format section: \viewer pdf3 /usr/bin/xpdf - the fact that configure is run at install time (and thus as root as Peter points out) is indeed a problem. It causes griefs to the windows installer too. I'll try to remove this for 1.4.1. Discussions about moral censure and ethics are an unneeded distraction in this context. JMarc I agree. That is why I resented them being introduced (kludge and the suggestion that RH deliberately sabotaged TeX cd releases by PF) and then I was chastised for expressing my disapproval. Ridiculing that popinjay was a mild response. From FC4, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Flynn Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. -- Rex
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter Flynn wrote: Paul Smith wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. Bah, IMO, bad advice, and a borderline troll to boot. We have many happy users of the stock lyx/tetex packages here in our (Math) department (though i've had to rebuild a customized tetex to default to US/Letter paper instead of A4). -- Rex
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Stephen P. Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Flynn Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. -- Rex Originally, yum installed lyx 1.3.5. Someone said this was fixed about 3 weeks ago. The OP installed the Tex Live dvd. If you use yum, it overwrites the TL tetex installation. The OP's complaint was that RH rpms lagged at least a year behind the fixes in the Tex Live cd and so he did not want them overwritten. I used those rpms because they don't insist on installing tetex as a dependency (rpms don't see non-rpms) and erasing TL tetex (2nd) and originally because that was all I could find. They worked just fine. Maybe the Bakoma fonts should be in extras along with math-ml fonts? The default is A4. I changed it to US with texconfig --paper letter or some syntax close to that. Apparently there is antipathy towards the fedora tetex rpms on comp.text.tex and even if Peter Flynn is an expert on Latex, he doesn't need to carry his agenda into the lyx-user mailing list, IMO, especially since he did so without humor. Water under the bridge, Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:53 PM Subject: Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs "Stephen" == Stephen P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I get it: you generate your messages with the automatic insult letter generator! Could you give me the URL please? The one I had does not work anymore... Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Do as I say, not as I do. JMarc PS: Cool it, please.
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
> "Stephen" == Stephen P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Stephen> Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Stephen> Do as I say, not as I do. Let's forget about it, then :) The points that interest me in that discussion are: - the fact that the tetex rpms might not be of very good quality on RH. This is not an anathema, AFAIK. Actually, I think P. Flynn knows more about (La)TeX that anyone else I know on this list (Herbert Voss excepted, maybe; I am going to piss of the other TeXnicians I forgot...), and his thoughts about this are appreciated. - we should try to build LyX in a way that allows for changing TeX distributions as easily as possible. In particularly, people who want to use the TeX Collection distribution should be able to do so with minimal hassle. - the code that searches for a latex executable was written by me at a time where LaTeX 2.09 was not uncommon. I can accept the fact that it is now completely inadequate. - the fact that configure is run at install time (and thus as root as Peter points out) is indeed a problem. It causes griefs to the windows installer too. I'll try to remove this for 1.4.1. Discussions about moral censure and ethics are an unneeded distraction in this context. JMarc
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs)
"Stephen" == Stephen P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Stephen> Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it.
Stephen> Do as I say, not as I do.
Let's forget about it, then :)
The points that interest me in that discussion are:
- the fact that the tetex rpms might not be of very good quality on
RH. This is not an anathema, AFAIK. Actually, I think P. Flynn knows
more about (La)TeX that anyone else I know on this list (Herbert
Voss excepted, maybe; I am going to piss of the other TeXnicians
I forgot...), and his thoughts about this are appreciated.
SH: My credo is "principles before personalities". P. Flynn may be
an expert at (La)TeX but this required a different skill set. He
didn't know about yum, /.lyx/preferences nor apparently about FC4
and rpms or Georg Baum wouldn't have posted explaining rpms to him.
- we should try to build LyX in a way that allows for changing TeX
distributions as easily as possible. In particularly, people who
want to use the TeX Collection distribution should be able to do so
with minimal hassle.
SH: I certainly agree with this. I think FC4 might install its version
of tetex by default. I had previously gotten Lyx1.3.6 to work with the
FC4 provided tetex files. So it took me about 15 minutes to erase lyx
and tetex +dependencies in preparation to installing the Tex 2004 dvd.
I think one can do a custom install of FC4 and uncheck the tetex box(es)
and avoid that chore.
- the code that searches for a latex executable was written by me at a
time where LaTeX 2.09 was not uncommon. I can accept the fact that
it is now completely inadequate.
SH: One needs to remember to put "PATH=/usr/TeX/bin/i386-linux:$PATH
export PATH into .bashrc_profile as detailed in the TeX 2004 User Guide.
Then installing LyX1.3.6 and Qt with the rpms was fairly uneventful. I
had left the xft fonts and aiksaurus installed. So LyX fired up and looked
OK. And the Tex Information displayed a lot of stuff. But when I tried to
load currency.lyx, I got an error message about missing article.cls So I
tried Reconfigure and that restored all the viewers (which were missing).
I rebooted and Reconfigure hadn't stuck. Missing article.cls again. I
checked the preferences file and it was empty except for the screen & fonts
section. From Windows I hunched this was a path problem. So I checked Edit
Preferences-->Paths and it was empty. Not even ImageMagick which is installed.
So then I used Angus Leeming's time honored recipe of fiddling with Path_prefix
echo $PATH which I cut and pasted into Path prefix(saved). Also put /usr/bin/xpdf
in file formats to check on Paul Johnson's complaint (it worked ok). At any rate,
this doesn't work like my Windows experience would lead me to expect. Now the
changes I made showed up in the preferences file under Misc = the Linux Path,
and I have one entry under Format section: \viewer "pdf3" "/usr/bin/xpdf"
- the fact that configure is run at install time (and thus as root as
Peter points out) is indeed a problem. It causes griefs to the
windows installer too. I'll try to remove this for 1.4.1.
Discussions about moral censure and ethics are an unneeded distraction
in this context.
JMarc
I agree. That is why I resented them being introduced ("kludge" and
the suggestion that RH deliberately sabotaged TeX cd releases by PF)
and then I was chastised for expressing my disapproval. Ridiculing
that popinjay was a mild response.
From FC4,
Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: "Peter Flynn" Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. -- Rex
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter Flynn wrote: Paul Smith wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. Bah, IMO, bad advice, and a borderline troll to boot. We have many happy users of the stock lyx/tetex packages here in our (Math) department (though i've had to rebuild a customized tetex to default to US/Letter paper instead of A4). -- Rex
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Rex Dieter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Stephen P. Harris wrote: - Original Message - From: "Peter Flynn" Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm I didn't follow the whole thread, but if it hadn't already been pointed out, you used the wrong rpms. lyx and mathml-fonts are both in Fedora Extras. Either manually download them, or simply enable the Fedora Extras repo in /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-extras.repo, and use: yum install lyx as originally suggested. -- Rex Originally, yum installed lyx 1.3.5. Someone said this was fixed about 3 weeks ago. The OP installed the Tex Live dvd. If you use yum, it overwrites the TL tetex installation. The OP's complaint was that RH rpms lagged at least a year behind the fixes in the Tex Live cd and so he did not want them overwritten. I used those rpms because they don't insist on installing tetex as a dependency (rpms don't see non-rpms) and erasing TL tetex (2nd) and originally because that was all I could find. They worked just fine. Maybe the Bakoma fonts should be in extras along with math-ml fonts? The default is A4. I changed it to US with texconfig --paper letter or some syntax close to that. Apparently there is antipathy towards the fedora tetex rpms on comp.text.tex and even if Peter Flynn is an expert on Latex, he doesn't need to carry his agenda into the lyx-user mailing list, IMO, especially since he did so without humor. Water under the bridge, Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter Flynn wrote: All that's required is for the maintainer of the tetex RPMs to use up-to-date versions from CTAN, and for the author of the embedded install script in the LyX RPM to test for a working kpsewhich instead of assuming it's in the location the RH tetex RPMs install it. It does so, but what you are seeing is the rpm dependency of the LyX rpm on the TeX rpm. If you install LyX from rpm, it will depend on the TeX rpm (see below). This is done on purpose, otherwise the rpm would be useless for ordinary users who use the TeX rpm. If you don't have the TeX rpm, install LyX from source, or use the --nodeps switch of rpm. As Jose' wrote: You are on your won if you want to use the LyX rpm without its dependencies. Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have. If that really is the case use something else. The important thing to remember is: rpm and yum do not know of software that is installed from something else than rpms. So if you don't install TeX from an rpm you will get missing dependencies in may TeX related rpms. This is no error, neither of the packages nor of rpm, it is the way how the rpm system was designed and works. You can work around this either with the --nodeps switch of rpm, or by installing these packages from source. Georg
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter == Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Paul A. Rubin wrote: Sorry, my wording was fuzzy. I don't have a working Linux box handy these days, but I assume that LyX runs with the permissions of whatever user is logged in. So if you can run latex directly, presumably when you run the LyX configure script it has the same permissions. Peter Actually the other way round: RPMs *have* to be installed as Peter root, and the configure script is built into the RPM, so it Peter automatically executes *as root* immediately after unpacking Peter LyX...the user doesn't enter into this at all. Yes, this is a problem. Actually, I think that we could get rid of this configure script invocation at install time, but I have to test it a bit more carefully. Peter This is madness. All it has to do is a `which kpsewhich` to Peter find out if a local installation of TeX exists or not. *Then* Peter it can test the version of LaTeX identified, and see if it Peter works, and only go hunting for latex binaries as a last resort. Well, to my defense, I will say that things were a bit different when I wrote this code long long ago :) Are we now in a situation where _all_ worthy TeX installations rely on kpathsea? Peter Absolutely. Some people have truly the weirdest stuff on their Peter systems. But it's a better plan to search for a working version Peter first, and only go looking for a better one if the first one Peter turns out to be a lemon. I am not sure yet what I want to do. If I have my own latex wrapper in my PATH, I would not want LyX to try to be clever and use the real latex instead. JMarc
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter == Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Even money says that the install script is hard-wired to look Peter in wherever RH's tetex puts the texhash (and doubtless Peter kpsewhich) binary, instead of relying on the path to pick up Peter the right one. No matter, all is now serene. This is not the case actually. However, I suspect that rpm, when building the .rpm file, replaces calls to texhash with absolute paths to where the command was found. So there is not much we can do about it. JMarc
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. Stephen, cool it please. -- Angus
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message -
From: Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique
qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements.
Stephen, cool it please.
--
Angus
I already have. Peter Flynn wrote:
Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the
inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have.
SH: Let me politely describe that as an exaggeration rather than a lie.
rpms were introduced as stable in the Fall of 1995, ten years ago. And
the first Tex Live cd was released the next year in 1996.
Peter Flynn abused this forum by introducing an off-topic rant about
RH tetex rpms which was more than just one post. This provoked a
defensive off-topic post from Jose Matos.
Peter Flynn dismissed Paul A. Rubin's attempt at help with a derisive
This is madness. Because Peter doesn't fully grasp troubleshooting.
Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking kludge{PF}.
Sincerely,
Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as
they arrived.
You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking kludge{PF}.
I don't see what your opinions about my moral character have to do with
just about anything. This mailing list has never needed a moderator. I'd
rather hope that that would continue.
Truly, I feel somewhat surprised to be the subject of your vitriol. If
England hadn't just regained the Ashes in a heroic and titanic struggle
against the Aussies, your post might even make me feel a little upset.
Sincerely,
Stephen
--
Angus
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message -
From: Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as
they arrived.
You are not when you act as a contributor to the mailing list. However,
Angus wrote: Stephen, cool it please.
That statement is easily seen as one of moral censure. Moderators who
make such statements are obligated to read the entire thread.
Non-moderators can also express their opinions and they are free to do so,
no matter how ignorant they are of the circumstances. Certainly reminds me
of Peter Flynn.
You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking kludge{PF}.
I don't see what your opinions about my moral character have to do with
just about anything. This mailing list has never needed a moderator. I'd
rather hope that that would continue.
Stephen, cool it please.
SH: That means you think I have said something inappropriate.
I doubt if you are delusional enough to suppose that your opinions
are facts. So your opinion is a value judgment relating to _your_
moral or ethical standards. A moderator is a person who has the
authority to impose their ethical standards/opinions. You do not
hold my respect as an ethical arbiter. I would have to respect your
opinion, have some regard for your moral/ethical stature in order
to think your opinion of what is inappropriate (cool it) is something
which I should pay heed to. You would need to be mature IMO, not
someone who wears there feelings on their cuff.
Perhaps I have been too subtle. Your moral character which is composed
of your values and standards served as the basis for your censorial remark.
Censorial remarks are rightfully made by moderators. Non-moderators
can also make such remarks. Your statement is no different than mine in
that it expressed displeasure... again IMO, the person who has the most
information is the most qualified to make a determination about what is
appropriate. I can't help it if you don't agree. Nor can I help it if you
think my statements are inflammatory, rather than accurate, and that
Flynn's statements are innocuous. You didn't respond to the issue, IMO.
Truly, I feel somewhat surprised to be the subject of your vitriol. If
England hadn't just regained the Ashes in a heroic and titanic struggle
against the Aussies, your post might even make me feel a little upset.
Does that sport have the situation where the referee blows the whistle
on the second foul? I see that as 'enabling', defending the real culprit,
and I'm strongly opposed to it because it makes my world a worse place.
I think the solution to Peter's problem is found in the TeX Live 2000
userguide, not attributable to the evil RH tetex.rpm developers who Peter
suggests are perhaps deliberately sabotaging the Tex Live releases.
I've thought this over before posting. I think most likely you are not
aware of why I don't like Peter Flynn's type of person, or even know
that he is that type of person. I did think previously, that you were
writing from a more informed point of view, which was based upon
circumstantial evidence, although, since you obvioulsy don't support
certain Australian Apartheid policies, I am not sure of my supposition
regarding the depth of your cunning.
Tally Ho,
Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen == Stephen P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as they arrived. Stephen You are not when you act as a contributor to the mailing Stephen list. However, Angus wrote: Stephen, cool it please. Stephen That statement is easily seen as one of moral censure. Stephen Moderators who make such statements are obligated to read the Stephen entire thread. Non-moderators can also express their opinions Stephen and they are free to do so, no matter how ignorant they are Stephen of the circumstances. Certainly reminds me of Peter Flynn. I get it: you generate your messages with the automatic insult letter generator! Could you give me the URL please? The one I had does not work anymore... JMarc PS: Cool it, please.
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter Flynn wrote: All that's required is for the maintainer of the tetex RPMs to use up-to-date versions from CTAN, and for the author of the embedded install script in the LyX RPM to test for a working kpsewhich instead of assuming it's in the location the RH tetex RPMs install it. It does so, but what you are seeing is the rpm dependency of the LyX rpm on the TeX rpm. If you install LyX from rpm, it will depend on the TeX rpm (see below). This is done on purpose, otherwise the rpm would be useless for ordinary users who use the TeX rpm. If you don't have the TeX rpm, install LyX from source, or use the --nodeps switch of rpm. As Jose' wrote: You are on your won if you want to use the LyX rpm without its dependencies. Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have. If that really is the case use something else. The important thing to remember is: rpm and yum do not know of software that is installed from something else than rpms. So if you don't install TeX from an rpm you will get missing dependencies in may TeX related rpms. This is no error, neither of the packages nor of rpm, it is the way how the rpm system was designed and works. You can work around this either with the --nodeps switch of rpm, or by installing these packages from source. Georg
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter == Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Paul A. Rubin wrote: Sorry, my wording was fuzzy. I don't have a working Linux box handy these days, but I assume that LyX runs with the permissions of whatever user is logged in. So if you can run latex directly, presumably when you run the LyX configure script it has the same permissions. Peter Actually the other way round: RPMs *have* to be installed as Peter root, and the configure script is built into the RPM, so it Peter automatically executes *as root* immediately after unpacking Peter LyX...the user doesn't enter into this at all. Yes, this is a problem. Actually, I think that we could get rid of this configure script invocation at install time, but I have to test it a bit more carefully. Peter This is madness. All it has to do is a `which kpsewhich` to Peter find out if a local installation of TeX exists or not. *Then* Peter it can test the version of LaTeX identified, and see if it Peter works, and only go hunting for latex binaries as a last resort. Well, to my defense, I will say that things were a bit different when I wrote this code long long ago :) Are we now in a situation where _all_ worthy TeX installations rely on kpathsea? Peter Absolutely. Some people have truly the weirdest stuff on their Peter systems. But it's a better plan to search for a working version Peter first, and only go looking for a better one if the first one Peter turns out to be a lemon. I am not sure yet what I want to do. If I have my own latex wrapper in my PATH, I would not want LyX to try to be clever and use the real latex instead. JMarc
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter == Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Peter Even money says that the install script is hard-wired to look Peter in wherever RH's tetex puts the texhash (and doubtless Peter kpsewhich) binary, instead of relying on the path to pick up Peter the right one. No matter, all is now serene. This is not the case actually. However, I suspect that rpm, when building the .rpm file, replaces calls to texhash with absolute paths to where the command was found. So there is not much we can do about it. JMarc
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. Stephen, cool it please. -- Angus
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message -
From: Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique
qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements.
Stephen, cool it please.
--
Angus
I already have. Peter Flynn wrote:
Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the
inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have.
SH: Let me politely describe that as an exaggeration rather than a lie.
rpms were introduced as stable in the Fall of 1995, ten years ago. And
the first Tex Live cd was released the next year in 1996.
Peter Flynn abused this forum by introducing an off-topic rant about
RH tetex rpms which was more than just one post. This provoked a
defensive off-topic post from Jose Matos.
Peter Flynn dismissed Paul A. Rubin's attempt at help with a derisive
This is madness. Because Peter doesn't fully grasp troubleshooting.
Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking kludge{PF}.
Sincerely,
Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as
they arrived.
You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking kludge{PF}.
I don't see what your opinions about my moral character have to do with
just about anything. This mailing list has never needed a moderator. I'd
rather hope that that would continue.
Truly, I feel somewhat surprised to be the subject of your vitriol. If
England hadn't just regained the Ashes in a heroic and titanic struggle
against the Aussies, your post might even make me feel a little upset.
Sincerely,
Stephen
--
Angus
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message -
From: Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as
they arrived.
You are not when you act as a contributor to the mailing list. However,
Angus wrote: Stephen, cool it please.
That statement is easily seen as one of moral censure. Moderators who
make such statements are obligated to read the entire thread.
Non-moderators can also express their opinions and they are free to do so,
no matter how ignorant they are of the circumstances. Certainly reminds me
of Peter Flynn.
You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking kludge{PF}.
I don't see what your opinions about my moral character have to do with
just about anything. This mailing list has never needed a moderator. I'd
rather hope that that would continue.
Stephen, cool it please.
SH: That means you think I have said something inappropriate.
I doubt if you are delusional enough to suppose that your opinions
are facts. So your opinion is a value judgment relating to _your_
moral or ethical standards. A moderator is a person who has the
authority to impose their ethical standards/opinions. You do not
hold my respect as an ethical arbiter. I would have to respect your
opinion, have some regard for your moral/ethical stature in order
to think your opinion of what is inappropriate (cool it) is something
which I should pay heed to. You would need to be mature IMO, not
someone who wears there feelings on their cuff.
Perhaps I have been too subtle. Your moral character which is composed
of your values and standards served as the basis for your censorial remark.
Censorial remarks are rightfully made by moderators. Non-moderators
can also make such remarks. Your statement is no different than mine in
that it expressed displeasure... again IMO, the person who has the most
information is the most qualified to make a determination about what is
appropriate. I can't help it if you don't agree. Nor can I help it if you
think my statements are inflammatory, rather than accurate, and that
Flynn's statements are innocuous. You didn't respond to the issue, IMO.
Truly, I feel somewhat surprised to be the subject of your vitriol. If
England hadn't just regained the Ashes in a heroic and titanic struggle
against the Aussies, your post might even make me feel a little upset.
Does that sport have the situation where the referee blows the whistle
on the second foul? I see that as 'enabling', defending the real culprit,
and I'm strongly opposed to it because it makes my world a worse place.
I think the solution to Peter's problem is found in the TeX Live 2000
userguide, not attributable to the evil RH tetex.rpm developers who Peter
suggests are perhaps deliberately sabotaging the Tex Live releases.
I've thought this over before posting. I think most likely you are not
aware of why I don't like Peter Flynn's type of person, or even know
that he is that type of person. I did think previously, that you were
writing from a more informed point of view, which was based upon
circumstantial evidence, although, since you obvioulsy don't support
certain Australian Apartheid policies, I am not sure of my supposition
regarding the depth of your cunning.
Tally Ho,
Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen == Stephen P Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as they arrived. Stephen You are not when you act as a contributor to the mailing Stephen list. However, Angus wrote: Stephen, cool it please. Stephen That statement is easily seen as one of moral censure. Stephen Moderators who make such statements are obligated to read the Stephen entire thread. Non-moderators can also express their opinions Stephen and they are free to do so, no matter how ignorant they are Stephen of the circumstances. Certainly reminds me of Peter Flynn. I get it: you generate your messages with the automatic insult letter generator! Could you give me the URL please? The one I had does not work anymore... JMarc PS: Cool it, please.
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter Flynn wrote: > All that's required is for the maintainer of the tetex RPMs to use > up-to-date versions from CTAN, and for the author of the embedded > install script in the LyX RPM to test for a working kpsewhich instead > of assuming it's in the location the RH tetex RPMs install it. It does so, but what you are seeing is the rpm dependency of the LyX rpm on the TeX rpm. If you install LyX from rpm, it will depend on the TeX rpm (see below). This is done on purpose, otherwise the rpm would be useless for ordinary users who use the TeX rpm. If you don't have the TeX rpm, install LyX from source, or use the --nodeps switch of rpm. As Jose' wrote: You are on your won if you want to use the LyX rpm without its dependencies. > Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and > the inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we > have. If that really is the case use something else. The important thing to remember is: rpm and yum do not know of software that is installed from something else than rpms. So if you don't install TeX from an rpm you will get missing dependencies in may TeX related rpms. This is no error, neither of the packages nor of rpm, it is the way how the rpm system was designed and works. You can work around this either with the --nodeps switch of rpm, or by installing these packages from source. Georg
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
> "Peter" == Peter Flynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> Paul A. Rubin wrote: >> Sorry, my wording was fuzzy. I don't have a working Linux box handy >> these days, but I assume that LyX runs with the permissions of >> whatever user is logged in. So if you can run latex directly, >> presumably when you run the LyX configure script it has the same >> permissions. Peter> Actually the other way round: RPMs *have* to be installed as Peter> root, and the configure script is built into the RPM, so it Peter> automatically executes *as root* immediately after unpacking Peter> LyX...the user doesn't enter into this at all. Yes, this is a problem. Actually, I think that we could get rid of this configure script invocation at install time, but I have to test it a bit more carefully. Peter> This is madness. All it has to do is a `which kpsewhich` to Peter> find out if a local installation of TeX exists or not. *Then* Peter> it can test the version of LaTeX identified, and see if it Peter> works, and only go hunting for latex binaries as a last resort. Well, to my defense, I will say that things were a bit different when I wrote this code long long ago :) Are we now in a situation where _all_ worthy TeX installations rely on kpathsea? Peter> Absolutely. Some people have truly the weirdest stuff on their Peter> systems. But it's a better plan to search for a working version Peter> first, and only go looking for a better one if the first one Peter> turns out to be a lemon. I am not sure yet what I want to do. If I have my own "latex" wrapper in my PATH, I would not want LyX to try to be clever and use the real latex instead. JMarc
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
> "Peter" == Peter Flynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> Even money says that the install script is hard-wired to look Peter> in wherever RH's tetex puts the texhash (and doubtless Peter> kpsewhich) binary, instead of relying on the path to pick up Peter> the right one. No matter, all is now serene. This is not the case actually. However, I suspect that rpm, when building the .rpm file, replaces calls to texhash with absolute paths to where the command was found. So there is not much we can do about it. JMarc
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: > SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique > qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. Stephen, cool it please. -- Angus
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message -
From: "Angus Leeming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique
qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements.
Stephen, cool it please.
--
Angus
I already have. Peter Flynn wrote:
"Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the
inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have."
SH: Let me politely describe that as an exaggeration rather than a lie.
rpms were introduced as stable in the Fall of 1995, ten years ago. And
the first Tex Live cd was released the next year in 1996.
Peter Flynn abused this forum by introducing an off-topic rant about
RH tetex rpms which was more than just one post. This provoked a
defensive off-topic post from Jose Matos.
Peter Flynn dismissed Paul A. Rubin's attempt at help with a derisive
"This is madness." Because Peter doesn't fully grasp troubleshooting.
Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking "kludge"{PF}.
Sincerely,
Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
> Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
> of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
> was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as
they arrived.
> You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
> be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
> bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
> right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
> justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
>
> Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
> perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
> a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking "kludge"{PF}.
I don't see what your opinions about my moral character have to do with
just about anything. This mailing list has never needed a moderator. I'd
rather hope that that would continue.
Truly, I feel somewhat surprised to be the subject of your vitriol. If
England hadn't just regained the Ashes in a heroic and titanic struggle
against the Aussies, your post might even make me feel a little upset.
> Sincerely,
> Stephen
--
Angus
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message -
From: "Angus Leeming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote:
Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression
of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention
was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator.
My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as
they arrived.
You are not when you act as a contributor to the mailing list. However,
Angus wrote: > Stephen, cool it please.
That statement is easily seen as one of moral censure. Moderators who
make such statements are obligated to read the entire thread.
Non-moderators can also express their opinions and they are free to do so,
no matter how ignorant they are of the circumstances. Certainly reminds me
of Peter Flynn.
You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to
be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to
bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a
right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more
justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts.
Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a
perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As
a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking "kludge"{PF}.
I don't see what your opinions about my moral character have to do with
just about anything. This mailing list has never needed a moderator. I'd
rather hope that that would continue.
Stephen, cool it please.
SH: That means you think I have said something inappropriate.
I doubt if you are delusional enough to suppose that your opinions
are facts. So your opinion is a value judgment relating to _your_
moral or ethical standards. A moderator is a person who has the
authority to impose their ethical standards/opinions. You do not
hold my respect as an ethical arbiter. I would have to respect your
opinion, have some regard for your moral/ethical stature in order
to think your opinion of what is inappropriate ("cool it) is something
which I should pay heed to. You would need to be mature IMO, not
someone who wears there feelings on their cuff.
Perhaps I have been too subtle. Your moral character which is composed
of your values and standards served as the basis for your censorial remark.
Censorial remarks are rightfully made by moderators. Non-moderators
can also make such remarks. Your statement is no different than mine in
that it expressed displeasure... again IMO, the person who has the most
information is the most qualified to make a determination about what is
appropriate. I can't help it if you don't agree. Nor can I help it if you
think my statements are inflammatory, rather than accurate, and that
Flynn's statements are innocuous. You didn't respond to the issue, IMO.
Truly, I feel somewhat surprised to be the subject of your vitriol. If
England hadn't just regained the Ashes in a heroic and titanic struggle
against the Aussies, your post might even make me feel a little upset.
Does that sport have the situation where the referee blows the whistle
on the second foul? I see that as 'enabling', defending the real culprit,
and I'm strongly opposed to it because it makes my world a worse place.
I think the solution to Peter's problem is found in the TeX Live 2000
userguide, not attributable to the evil RH tetex.rpm developers who Peter
suggests are perhaps deliberately sabotaging the Tex Live releases.
I've thought this over before posting. I think most likely you are not
aware of why I don't like Peter Flynn's type of person, or even know
that he is that type of person. I did think previously, that you were
writing from a more informed point of view, which was based upon
circumstantial evidence, although, since you obvioulsy don't support
certain Australian Apartheid policies, I am not sure of my supposition
regarding the depth of your cunning.
Tally Ho,
Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
> "Stephen" == Stephen P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your >> mails as they arrived. >> Stephen> You are not when you act as a contributor to the mailing Stephen> list. However, Angus wrote: > Stephen, cool it please. Stephen> That statement is easily seen as one of moral censure. Stephen> Moderators who make such statements are obligated to read the Stephen> entire thread. Non-moderators can also express their opinions Stephen> and they are free to do so, no matter how ignorant they are Stephen> of the circumstances. Certainly reminds me of Peter Flynn. I get it: you generate your messages with the automatic insult letter generator! Could you give me the URL please? The one I had does not work anymore... JMarc PS: Cool it, please.
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On Saturday 10 September 2005 17:56, Stephen P. Harris wrote: Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. No it does not. :-) The version available in extras is 1.3.6. There was some miscommunication previously and that was why only 1.3.5 was available, for the last 2 weeks this has been solved. If there is any problem with yum provided version in FC-[345] please report it here and I will have a look a push the fixes to Fedora Extras. -- José AbÃlio
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... -- José AbÃlio
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Jose' Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:09 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On Saturday 10 September 2005 17:56, Stephen P. Harris wrote: Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. No it does not. :-) The version available in extras is 1.3.6. There was some miscommunication previously and that was why only 1.3.5 was available, for the last 2 weeks this has been solved. If there is any problem with yum provided version in FC-[345] please report it here and I will have a look a push the fixes to Fedora Extras. -- José AbÃlio I installed Lyx more than two weeks ago on FC4 using yum and knew it was just a matter of time before the repository was updated. Later in the thread, Peter Flynn mentioned that he used yum to install Lyx and I could tell the Lyx files had been updated to 1.3.6. But that was just after I downloaded and installed rpms from the internet to provide Lyx 1.3.6 which gets around overwriting his previously installed tugboat tetex live install by yum. Peter did that with -nodeps which could extend past the tetex dependency, I think, because one probably still needs latex-xft-fonts. Peter's current email description needs clarifying to serve as newcomer documentation. (Intended to benefit newish others reading this, not pointed at Peter.) Anyway, Peter approved of yum's design (provides a warning) and making a Dsl connection on FC4 is maybe easier than with Win XP. I notice rpmfind has NEW to distinguish updates, which is nice. LibAiksaurus-1.2.so.0 tambien, Stephen
OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Jose' Matos wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. No, RH is on its own. Posters to c.t.t have consistently told users of the RH tetex RPMs to trash them and replace them with the TUG CDs. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. The TeX community has been trying for years to get whoever is responsible for the RH tetex RPMs to update them properly. But they insist on meddling with the directories and the subset of features apparently deliberately to make it inconsistent with the TUG CDs. I have no idea why they insist on doing this. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? It was out of date last time I looked. I have consistently told my users never to install it but always to use the TUG CDs instead. For FC4 I didn't even bother looking at it, just ripped it out immediately the OS was installed (http://silmaril.ie/cgi-bin/blog#fc4). If it has been updated, then the foregoing does not apply, and I owe the maintainer an apology. Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? I believe people have tried, but BugZilla is virtually useless: all it does is provide a talking-shop for the packagers to explain why they won't change. I have reports and requests in for various pieces of s/w pending for years, and all the authors do is talk. One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... All that's required is for the maintainer of the tetex RPMs to use up-to-date versions from CTAN, and for the author of the embedded install script in the LyX RPM to test for a working kpsewhich instead of assuming it's in the location the RH tetex RPMs install it. Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have. I suggest we don't pursue this here but move it offline. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Jose' Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:11 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... -- José AbÃlio This solution is for another frontend, TeXnic; shouldn't it work for LyX as well? http://tug.org/TeXnik/mainFAQ.cgi?file=texlive Installing TeXLive [TL] If you have enough space on your harddisk, then goto TUG's website or a mirror and look for the newest TeXLive image and then wget http://www.tug.org/ftp/texlive/Images/ Image Name .iso mount Image Name .iso -r -t iso9660 -o loop /mnt cd /mnt /install-tl.sh Choose TL complete and as path for example /opt/texlive. Into /etc/profile.local (SuSE, maybe different for other systems) or ~/.bashrc insert export PATH=/opt/texlive/bin/i386-linux:$PATH Now all should work well ... Regards, Stephen
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 12:13 PM Subject: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Jose' Matos wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. No, RH is on its own. Posters to c.t.t have consistently told users of the RH tetex RPMs to trash them and replace them with the TUG CDs. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. The TeX community has been trying for years to get whoever is responsible for the RH tetex RPMs to update them properly. But they insist on meddling with the directories and the subset of features apparently deliberately to make it inconsistent with the TUG CDs. I have no idea why they insist on doing this. I read this description from an authoritative source (tug.org) and your opinion is quite incoherent and inexperienced when compared to it. The TeX Collection is self-described as having progressed to the point that comprehensive began to become incomprehensible. That is a polite way of saying it had become a mess. It is no wonder that tetex would have received a lower priority. You also single out RedHat. Which of the many distros that using rpms or .deb have decided they have the time to incorporate the endless stream of upgrades in a system that in its entirety encompasses 6gigs? Now in 2004, quite a few fundamental changes are made. And 2004 was released as a less perfected product than 2003. I don't mean that the fundamental changes were a mistake or that a lot of rough edges can be avoided in such a transition. But certainly you are not going to find a bunch of Linux distros jumping onto the bandwagon. They are not going to devote a large portion of their release to TeX, nor many man-hours to fixing Tex. The idea that the distros should do this, is undereducated and inexperienced. You speak of having users and dispensing TeX advice for 20 years. Peter wrote: Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre- existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. --: http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb25-1/hagen-tl.pdf Beginning with version 8 TEX Live has become the TEX Collection. It combines an out-of-the-box TEX system and the complete CTAN repository (Comprehensive TEX Archive Network: a snapshot of almost all that is available for TEX users). TEX systems started on floppy disks but soon filled CDROM's and now DVD's. An archive of a couple of hundred files grew into tens of thousands. tree directoriesfiles bytes texmf 3,750 45,000 626 M texmf-extra1151,500 66 M bin 162,500 250 M source 380 6,900 104 M If the CTAN archive is included we have a grand total of 138,000 (unzipped even 420,000) files, organized in 10,000 directories, totaling 5,906,870,829 bytes, or about 6 GB. With version 8 the organizers realized that comprehensive began to become incomprehensible. Even though the TDS, the TEX Directory Structure, had brought some order in grouping files they were still faced with the fact that old TEX systems had been replaced with new systems in a continuous process to adapt to changing operating systems, improved text editors and more sophisticated and generally available viewers and printers. Fundamental changes appeared necessary and are implemented in the TEX Collection 2004. This paper will focus on some of the most important of these changes. Summary: When TEX Live 2004 shows up in your postbox, update and things will work as usual. If you have your own fonts installed, however, you need to relocate your personal mapfiles to .../fonts/map, and run mktexlsr to update your files database. Also, if your scripts use kpsewhich, check them.
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On Saturday 10 September 2005 17:56, Stephen P. Harris wrote: Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. No it does not. :-) The version available in extras is 1.3.6. There was some miscommunication previously and that was why only 1.3.5 was available, for the last 2 weeks this has been solved. If there is any problem with yum provided version in FC-[345] please report it here and I will have a look a push the fixes to Fedora Extras. -- José AbÃlio
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... -- José AbÃlio
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Jose' Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:09 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On Saturday 10 September 2005 17:56, Stephen P. Harris wrote: Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. No it does not. :-) The version available in extras is 1.3.6. There was some miscommunication previously and that was why only 1.3.5 was available, for the last 2 weeks this has been solved. If there is any problem with yum provided version in FC-[345] please report it here and I will have a look a push the fixes to Fedora Extras. -- José AbÃlio I installed Lyx more than two weeks ago on FC4 using yum and knew it was just a matter of time before the repository was updated. Later in the thread, Peter Flynn mentioned that he used yum to install Lyx and I could tell the Lyx files had been updated to 1.3.6. But that was just after I downloaded and installed rpms from the internet to provide Lyx 1.3.6 which gets around overwriting his previously installed tugboat tetex live install by yum. Peter did that with -nodeps which could extend past the tetex dependency, I think, because one probably still needs latex-xft-fonts. Peter's current email description needs clarifying to serve as newcomer documentation. (Intended to benefit newish others reading this, not pointed at Peter.) Anyway, Peter approved of yum's design (provides a warning) and making a Dsl connection on FC4 is maybe easier than with Win XP. I notice rpmfind has NEW to distinguish updates, which is nice. LibAiksaurus-1.2.so.0 tambien, Stephen
OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Jose' Matos wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. No, RH is on its own. Posters to c.t.t have consistently told users of the RH tetex RPMs to trash them and replace them with the TUG CDs. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. The TeX community has been trying for years to get whoever is responsible for the RH tetex RPMs to update them properly. But they insist on meddling with the directories and the subset of features apparently deliberately to make it inconsistent with the TUG CDs. I have no idea why they insist on doing this. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? It was out of date last time I looked. I have consistently told my users never to install it but always to use the TUG CDs instead. For FC4 I didn't even bother looking at it, just ripped it out immediately the OS was installed (http://silmaril.ie/cgi-bin/blog#fc4). If it has been updated, then the foregoing does not apply, and I owe the maintainer an apology. Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? I believe people have tried, but BugZilla is virtually useless: all it does is provide a talking-shop for the packagers to explain why they won't change. I have reports and requests in for various pieces of s/w pending for years, and all the authors do is talk. One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... All that's required is for the maintainer of the tetex RPMs to use up-to-date versions from CTAN, and for the author of the embedded install script in the LyX RPM to test for a working kpsewhich instead of assuming it's in the location the RH tetex RPMs install it. Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have. I suggest we don't pursue this here but move it offline. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Jose' Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:11 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... -- José AbÃlio This solution is for another frontend, TeXnic; shouldn't it work for LyX as well? http://tug.org/TeXnik/mainFAQ.cgi?file=texlive Installing TeXLive [TL] If you have enough space on your harddisk, then goto TUG's website or a mirror and look for the newest TeXLive image and then wget http://www.tug.org/ftp/texlive/Images/ Image Name .iso mount Image Name .iso -r -t iso9660 -o loop /mnt cd /mnt /install-tl.sh Choose TL complete and as path for example /opt/texlive. Into /etc/profile.local (SuSE, maybe different for other systems) or ~/.bashrc insert export PATH=/opt/texlive/bin/i386-linux:$PATH Now all should work well ... Regards, Stephen
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 12:13 PM Subject: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Jose' Matos wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. No, RH is on its own. Posters to c.t.t have consistently told users of the RH tetex RPMs to trash them and replace them with the TUG CDs. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. The TeX community has been trying for years to get whoever is responsible for the RH tetex RPMs to update them properly. But they insist on meddling with the directories and the subset of features apparently deliberately to make it inconsistent with the TUG CDs. I have no idea why they insist on doing this. I read this description from an authoritative source (tug.org) and your opinion is quite incoherent and inexperienced when compared to it. The TeX Collection is self-described as having progressed to the point that comprehensive began to become incomprehensible. That is a polite way of saying it had become a mess. It is no wonder that tetex would have received a lower priority. You also single out RedHat. Which of the many distros that using rpms or .deb have decided they have the time to incorporate the endless stream of upgrades in a system that in its entirety encompasses 6gigs? Now in 2004, quite a few fundamental changes are made. And 2004 was released as a less perfected product than 2003. I don't mean that the fundamental changes were a mistake or that a lot of rough edges can be avoided in such a transition. But certainly you are not going to find a bunch of Linux distros jumping onto the bandwagon. They are not going to devote a large portion of their release to TeX, nor many man-hours to fixing Tex. The idea that the distros should do this, is undereducated and inexperienced. You speak of having users and dispensing TeX advice for 20 years. Peter wrote: Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre- existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. --: http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb25-1/hagen-tl.pdf Beginning with version 8 TEX Live has become the TEX Collection. It combines an out-of-the-box TEX system and the complete CTAN repository (Comprehensive TEX Archive Network: a snapshot of almost all that is available for TEX users). TEX systems started on floppy disks but soon filled CDROM's and now DVD's. An archive of a couple of hundred files grew into tens of thousands. tree directoriesfiles bytes texmf 3,750 45,000 626 M texmf-extra1151,500 66 M bin 162,500 250 M source 380 6,900 104 M If the CTAN archive is included we have a grand total of 138,000 (unzipped even 420,000) files, organized in 10,000 directories, totaling 5,906,870,829 bytes, or about 6 GB. With version 8 the organizers realized that comprehensive began to become incomprehensible. Even though the TDS, the TEX Directory Structure, had brought some order in grouping files they were still faced with the fact that old TEX systems had been replaced with new systems in a continuous process to adapt to changing operating systems, improved text editors and more sophisticated and generally available viewers and printers. Fundamental changes appeared necessary and are implemented in the TEX Collection 2004. This paper will focus on some of the most important of these changes. Summary: When TEX Live 2004 shows up in your postbox, update and things will work as usual. If you have your own fonts installed, however, you need to relocate your personal mapfiles to .../fonts/map, and run mktexlsr to update your files database. Also, if your scripts use kpsewhich, check them.
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On Saturday 10 September 2005 17:56, Stephen P. Harris wrote: > Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. > But that installs 1.3.5 by default. No it does not. :-) The version available in extras is 1.3.6. There was some miscommunication previously and that was why only 1.3.5 was available, for the last 2 weeks this has been solved. If there is any problem with yum provided version in FC-[345] please report it here and I will have a look a push the fixes to Fedora Extras. -- José AbÃlio
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: > > 2. yum install lyx. > > Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. > Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess > that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from > the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... -- José AbÃlio
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Jose' Matos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:09 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On Saturday 10 September 2005 17:56, Stephen P. Harris wrote: Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. No it does not. :-) The version available in extras is 1.3.6. There was some miscommunication previously and that was why only 1.3.5 was available, for the last 2 weeks this has been solved. If there is any problem with yum provided version in FC-[345] please report it here and I will have a look a push the fixes to Fedora Extras. -- José AbÃlio I installed Lyx more than two weeks ago on FC4 using yum and knew it was just a matter of time before the repository was updated. Later in the thread, Peter Flynn mentioned that he used yum to install Lyx and I could tell the Lyx files had been updated to 1.3.6. But that was just after I downloaded and installed rpms from the internet to provide Lyx 1.3.6 which gets around overwriting his previously installed tugboat tetex live install by yum. Peter did that with -nodeps which could extend past the tetex dependency, I think, because one probably still needs latex-xft-fonts. Peter's current email description needs clarifying to serve as newcomer documentation. (Intended to benefit newish others reading this, not pointed at Peter.) Anyway, Peter approved of yum's design (provides a warning) and making a Dsl connection on FC4 is maybe easier than with Win XP. I notice rpmfind has "NEW" to distinguish updates, which is nice. LibAiksaurus-1.2.so.0 tambien, Stephen
OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Jose' Matos wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. No, RH is on its own. Posters to c.t.t have consistently told users of the RH tetex RPMs to trash them and replace them with the TUG CDs. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. The TeX community has been trying for years to get whoever is responsible for the RH tetex RPMs to update them properly. But they insist on meddling with the directories and the subset of features apparently deliberately to make it inconsistent with the TUG CDs. I have no idea why they insist on doing this. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? It was out of date last time I looked. I have consistently told my users never to install it but always to use the TUG CDs instead. For FC4 I didn't even bother looking at it, just ripped it out immediately the OS was installed (http://silmaril.ie/cgi-bin/blog#fc4). If it has been updated, then the foregoing does not apply, and I owe the maintainer an apology. Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? I believe people have tried, but BugZilla is virtually useless: all it does is provide a talking-shop for the packagers to explain why they won't change. I have reports and requests in for various pieces of s/w pending for years, and all the authors do is talk. One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... All that's required is for the maintainer of the tetex RPMs to use up-to-date versions from CTAN, and for the author of the embedded install script in the LyX RPM to test for a working kpsewhich instead of assuming it's in the location the RH tetex RPMs install it. Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have. I suggest we don't pursue this here but move it offline. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Jose' Matos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 5:11 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: > 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. What are the problems you have with FC tetex package? Have you reported it to bugzilla.redhat.com? One other possibility would be to package that version and replace the require in lyx rpm from tetex to tex... -- José AbÃlio This solution is for another frontend, TeXnic; shouldn't it work for LyX as well? http://tug.org/TeXnik/mainFAQ.cgi?file=texlive Installing TeXLive [TL] "If you have enough space on your harddisk, then goto TUG's website or a mirror and look for the newest TeXLive image and then wget http://www.tug.org/ftp/texlive/Images/< Image Name >.iso mount < Image Name >.iso -r -t iso9660 -o loop /mnt cd /mnt /install-tl.sh Choose TL complete and as path for example /opt/texlive. Into /etc/profile.local (SuSE, maybe different for other systems) or ~/.bashrc insert export PATH=/opt/texlive/bin/i386-linux:$PATH Now all should work well ..." Regards, Stephen
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Peter Flynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 12:13 PM Subject: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Jose' Matos wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 19:23, Peter Flynn wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. If you do that you are on your own. No, RH is on its own. Posters to c.t.t have consistently told users of the RH tetex RPMs to trash them and replace them with the TUG CDs. One other possibility is to redo the tetex rpm and then yum will work. The TeX community has been trying for years to get whoever is responsible for the RH tetex RPMs to update them properly. But they insist on meddling with the directories and the subset of features apparently deliberately to make it inconsistent with the TUG CDs. I have no idea why they insist on doing this. I read this description from an authoritative source (tug.org) and your opinion is quite incoherent and inexperienced when compared to it. The TeX Collection is self-described as having progressed to the point "that comprehensive began to become incomprehensible". That is a polite way of saying it had become a mess. It is no wonder that tetex would have received a lower priority. You also single out RedHat. Which of the many distros that using rpms or .deb have decided they have the time to incorporate the endless stream of upgrades in a system that in its entirety encompasses 6gigs? Now in 2004, quite a few fundamental changes are made. And 2004 was released as a less perfected product than 2003. I don't mean that the fundamental changes were a mistake or that a lot of rough edges can be avoided in such a transition. But certainly you are not going to find a bunch of Linux distros jumping onto the bandwagon. They are not going to devote a large portion of their release to TeX, nor many man-hours to fixing Tex. The idea that the distros should do this, is undereducated and inexperienced. You speak of having users and dispensing TeX advice for 20 years. Peter wrote: "Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre- existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded?" SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. --: http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb25-1/hagen-tl.pdf "Beginning with version 8 TEX Live has become the TEX Collection. It combines an out-of-the-box TEX system and the complete CTAN repository (Comprehensive TEX Archive Network: a snapshot of almost all that is available for TEX users). TEX systems started on floppy disks but soon filled CDROM's and now DVD's. An archive of a couple of hundred files grew into tens of thousands. tree directoriesfiles bytes texmf 3,750 45,000 626 M texmf-extra1151,500 66 M bin 162,500 250 M source 380 6,900 104 M If the CTAN archive is included we have a grand total of 138,000 (unzipped even 420,000) files, organized in 10,000 directories, totaling 5,906,870,829 bytes, or about 6 GB. With version 8 the organizers realized that comprehensive began to become incomprehensible. Even though the TDS, the TEX Directory Structure, had brought some order in grouping files they were still faced with the fact that old TEX systems had been replaced with new systems in a continuous process to adapt to changing operating systems, improved text editors and more sophisticated and generally available viewers and printers. Fundamental changes appeared necessary and are implemented in the TEX Collection 2004. This paper will focus on some of the most important of these changes. Summary: When TEX Live 2004 shows up in your postbox, update and things will work as usual. If you have your own fonts installed, however, you need to relocate your personal mapfiles to .../fonts/map, and run mktexlsr to update your files database. Also, if your scripts use kpsewhich, check them."
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/10/05, Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. It can't find the commands kpsewhich and texhash, which is weird because they are both in the global path. The TeX is a new full install from the TeX Collection DVD. How do I get around this? Is the postinstall script SUing to some strange UID (the RPM install is done as root, of course). This happens for both xforms and qt versions (tried both) and now they won't uninstall cleanly either, because they're trying to undo stuff that never got done. It's not just kpsewhich and texhash -- both install scripts failed to find a working latex executable. IIRC, the install scripts for look for latex and latex2e by trying to execute them. Assuming that your latex executable is on the global path and works (which you can test by trying to run it from a shell prompt), Yes, all that is working fine. The problem does not appear to lie with the installation of TeX. you might check whether there's a permissions problem (is the LyX install script running under an account that can access the LaTeX installation). How do I know what account the LyX postinstall script from the RPM has picked to run as? The RPM was installed as root, of course, but if LyX has picked something else to use to run its script, that is hidden from sight -- what's the best way to find out (and why on earth would they want to do such a weird thing anyway?). kpsewhich and all the TeX binaries are in /usr/local/bin, which is in every user's path, AFAIK. At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX Collection DVD. Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul A. Rubin wrote: Peter Flynn wrote: I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX Collection DVD. Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? ///Peter Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. I had to reinstall FC4 and haven't reinstalled LyX. So I can test 1.3.6 pretty easily. Sometimes it matters where you get your rpms from. I will do it now and follow up pretty soon. Regards, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul A. Rubin wrote: Peter Flynn wrote: I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX Collection DVD. Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? ///Peter Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. I had to reinstall FC4 and haven't reinstalled LyX. So I can test 1.3.6 pretty easily. Sometimes it matters where you get your rpms from. I will do it now and follow up pretty soon. Regards, Stephen I checked that I had the rpms on my fat32 transfer file drive before starting this. They have li in the filename. I also notice that I downloaded qt and xforms; one of which also needs to be installed. Did you install the qt rpm? lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm or lyx-xforms-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm and the main LyX file: lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm I will test this by installing the noarch first. I think 586 means mmx support and does not cause a problem. I'm pretty sure I've read 1.3.6 works with FC4. Will let you know, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/10/05, Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre-existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? The .lyx directory is a (hidden) directory placed in your home directory, which contains the data of your configuration of LyX (chosen viewers, fonts, keyboard bindings, etc.). When you install LyX, LyX will create .lyx if it does not exist, but using your previous .lyx directory will save you the time of configuring LyX again. Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Paul Smith wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. yum fails to see that you already have TeX installed, so it will try to download and install the old RH tetex all over again -- the one I so carefully got rid of when I installed FC4. Fortunately, yum pauses before installing, to ask if this is right, so you get the chance to abort it. Someone who wrote yum needs praising for doing this, and someone needs to check about using the old RH tetex RPMs without testing first for the existence of a TeX installation. In the process, however, I noticed that yum wanted to install lyx-1.3.6-4.fc4.i386.rpm, not the lyx-1.3.6-1fc3_qt.i386.rpm or lyx-1.3.6-1fc3_xforms.i386.rpm which are advertised on lyx.org. And it wants something called aiksaurus, which looks quite useful. rpm -Uiv --nodeps happily stamped all over previous traces of LyX installations, but as expected: var/tmp/rpm-tmp.972: line 3: texhash: command not found error: %postun(lyx-1.3.6-1_qt.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.972: line 3: texhash: command not found error: %postun(lyx-1.3.6-1_xforms.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 Even money says that the install script is hard-wired to look in wherever RH's tetex puts the texhash (and doubtless kpsewhich) binary, instead of relying on the path to pick up the right one. No matter, all is now serene. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Sorry, my wording was fuzzy. I don't have a working Linux box handy these days, but I assume that LyX runs with the permissions of whatever user is logged in. So if you can run latex directly, presumably when you run the LyX configure script it has the same permissions. Actually the other way round: RPMs *have* to be installed as root, and the configure script is built into the RPM, so it automatically executes *as root* immediately after unpacking LyX...the user doesn't enter into this at all. If you're motivated, you could hack the configure script to add a couple I don't have access to configure scripts embedded in RPMs unless I go get the Source RPM, and life's too short to dig into those. of echo commands that might tell you at least where things are going south. If I'm reading the configure script correctly, the quest for a working copy of LaTeX is done in two parts. First, every directory on the path is scanned for either 'latex' or 'latex2e'. (More precisely, the path is scanned for 'latex', then if necessary for 'latex2e'.) If a This is madness. All it has to do is a `which kpsewhich` to find out if a local installation of TeX exists or not. *Then* it can test the version of LaTeX identified, and see if it works, and only go hunting for latex binaries as a last resort. file with the correct name is found, LyX then tries to run it against a test .ltx file to determine if it's a working version of LaTeX. So it might be helpful to echo each directory being searched. By the way, IIRC there have been misadventures in the past caused by people having a both functional and dysfunctional LaTeX installations, with the dysfunctional one first on the path. Absolutely. Some people have truly the weirdest stuff on their systems. But it's a better plan to search for a working version first, and only go looking for a better one if the first one turns out to be a lemon. If I'm reading the script correctly (and that's a big if, since I'm not a Linux user), once it finds a 'latex' file, it stops searching for other 'latex' files even if the one it finds doesn't pass the functionality test. Might be worth checking. Searching for latex is a poor route to take, and should be used only as a last resort. kpsewhich is the key to identifying a working TeX installation. Thanks for all your help...it's working, and all I wanted to do was screenshot it and document the installation process for my readers, which I'm now able to do :-) Now all I have left to do is find a willing vict^H^H^H^Hsucke^H^H^H^H^Hvolunteer to do the same for Windows and Mac. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul Smith wrote: [me] Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre-existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? ///Peter Hello Peter, I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm As I mentioned earlier, this was a fresh install so no previous lyx directory from a previous installation and I am not part of a network. I installed the base lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm first and got an error message that it needed qt or xforms. So I tried rpm -i on lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm next. I got the error message that latex-xft-fonts was missing and also libAiksaurus-1.2.so.0. So I downloaded the font package by searching rpmfind latex-xft-fonts on Google. It turned out not to matter that the font package was for FC3. Next I tried to install the libaiksuarus package mentioned above, but it failed because it needed the libaiksuarus-data package. The *nix packaging system often has multiple dependencies and does not come all neatly bundled like Windows. Since a person can often go back and forth downloading one dependency at a time, then testing, and finding something else is needed, I chose to use yum install libaiksuarus which provides extra stuff, but is convenient if you have space. One has to be connected to the internet for yum to work. Typing yum install * works from the command line in an open terminal. So now the libaiksuarus and the latex-xft-fonts packages were installed so qt* installed nicely. So then LyX installed properly. /usr Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Thanks for all your help...it's working, and all I wanted to do was screenshot it and document the installation process for my readers, which I'm now able to do :-) Now all I have left to do is find a willing vict^H^H^H^Hsucke^H^H^H^H^Hvolunteer to do the same for Windows and Mac. Previously: No matter, all is now serene. ///Peter Oh, how nice. I suppose you were able to get a good screenshot of LyX -- View -- Tex Information -- Latex classes (*.cls) which displayed a partial list of your installed classes? I think that this a good screenshot for documenting a proper installation since that area sometimes fails to resolve due to usr mistakes. The Windows installation is easy, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: [me] Previously: No matter, all is now serene. Oh, how nice. I suppose you were able to get a good screenshot of LyX -- View -- Tex Information -- Latex classes (*.cls) which displayed a partial list of your installed classes? It displayed the whole lot, including the ones I have written locally (which are in $TEXMFLOCAL). Interesting -- despite the LyX RPM having insisted at install time on wanting the RH tetex installed as a dependency, once installed without it it seems to recognise my TeX Collection installation perfectly happily. But this may have been due to stuff being left over from a previous (partial) install. I think that this a good screenshot for documenting a proper installation since that area sometimes fails to resolve due to usr mistakes. It's a very good test, yes. My screenshot in http://research.silmaril.ie/latex/chapter2.html#editors is rather out of date. The Windows installation is easy, We shall see. I'll be installing it under XP/SP2 on a system with the TeX Collection (MiKTeX+TeXnicCenter) preinstalled. This has been very useful for some projects of my own as well, which need to be able to recognise a working TeX installation. Thank you all very much for your help. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs The Windows installation is easy, We shall see. I'll be installing it under XP/SP2 on a system with the TeX Collection (MiKTeX+TeXnicCenter) preinstalled. reLyx has become obsolete. tex2lyx.exe, found on the Wiki is recommended.
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/10/05, Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. It can't find the commands kpsewhich and texhash, which is weird because they are both in the global path. The TeX is a new full install from the TeX Collection DVD. How do I get around this? Is the postinstall script SUing to some strange UID (the RPM install is done as root, of course). This happens for both xforms and qt versions (tried both) and now they won't uninstall cleanly either, because they're trying to undo stuff that never got done. It's not just kpsewhich and texhash -- both install scripts failed to find a working latex executable. IIRC, the install scripts for look for latex and latex2e by trying to execute them. Assuming that your latex executable is on the global path and works (which you can test by trying to run it from a shell prompt), Yes, all that is working fine. The problem does not appear to lie with the installation of TeX. you might check whether there's a permissions problem (is the LyX install script running under an account that can access the LaTeX installation). How do I know what account the LyX postinstall script from the RPM has picked to run as? The RPM was installed as root, of course, but if LyX has picked something else to use to run its script, that is hidden from sight -- what's the best way to find out (and why on earth would they want to do such a weird thing anyway?). kpsewhich and all the TeX binaries are in /usr/local/bin, which is in every user's path, AFAIK. At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX Collection DVD. Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul A. Rubin wrote: Peter Flynn wrote: I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX Collection DVD. Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? ///Peter Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. I had to reinstall FC4 and haven't reinstalled LyX. So I can test 1.3.6 pretty easily. Sometimes it matters where you get your rpms from. I will do it now and follow up pretty soon. Regards, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul A. Rubin wrote: Peter Flynn wrote: I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX Collection DVD. Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? ///Peter Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. I had to reinstall FC4 and haven't reinstalled LyX. So I can test 1.3.6 pretty easily. Sometimes it matters where you get your rpms from. I will do it now and follow up pretty soon. Regards, Stephen I checked that I had the rpms on my fat32 transfer file drive before starting this. They have li in the filename. I also notice that I downloaded qt and xforms; one of which also needs to be installed. Did you install the qt rpm? lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm or lyx-xforms-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm and the main LyX file: lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm I will test this by installing the noarch first. I think 586 means mmx support and does not cause a problem. I'm pretty sure I've read 1.3.6 works with FC4. Will let you know, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Paul Smith wrote: [me] Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre-existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/10/05, Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre-existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? The .lyx directory is a (hidden) directory placed in your home directory, which contains the data of your configuration of LyX (chosen viewers, fonts, keyboard bindings, etc.). When you install LyX, LyX will create .lyx if it does not exist, but using your previous .lyx directory will save you the time of configuring LyX again. Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Paul Smith wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. yum fails to see that you already have TeX installed, so it will try to download and install the old RH tetex all over again -- the one I so carefully got rid of when I installed FC4. Fortunately, yum pauses before installing, to ask if this is right, so you get the chance to abort it. Someone who wrote yum needs praising for doing this, and someone needs to check about using the old RH tetex RPMs without testing first for the existence of a TeX installation. In the process, however, I noticed that yum wanted to install lyx-1.3.6-4.fc4.i386.rpm, not the lyx-1.3.6-1fc3_qt.i386.rpm or lyx-1.3.6-1fc3_xforms.i386.rpm which are advertised on lyx.org. And it wants something called aiksaurus, which looks quite useful. rpm -Uiv --nodeps happily stamped all over previous traces of LyX installations, but as expected: var/tmp/rpm-tmp.972: line 3: texhash: command not found error: %postun(lyx-1.3.6-1_qt.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.972: line 3: texhash: command not found error: %postun(lyx-1.3.6-1_xforms.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 Even money says that the install script is hard-wired to look in wherever RH's tetex puts the texhash (and doubtless kpsewhich) binary, instead of relying on the path to pick up the right one. No matter, all is now serene. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Sorry, my wording was fuzzy. I don't have a working Linux box handy these days, but I assume that LyX runs with the permissions of whatever user is logged in. So if you can run latex directly, presumably when you run the LyX configure script it has the same permissions. Actually the other way round: RPMs *have* to be installed as root, and the configure script is built into the RPM, so it automatically executes *as root* immediately after unpacking LyX...the user doesn't enter into this at all. If you're motivated, you could hack the configure script to add a couple I don't have access to configure scripts embedded in RPMs unless I go get the Source RPM, and life's too short to dig into those. of echo commands that might tell you at least where things are going south. If I'm reading the configure script correctly, the quest for a working copy of LaTeX is done in two parts. First, every directory on the path is scanned for either 'latex' or 'latex2e'. (More precisely, the path is scanned for 'latex', then if necessary for 'latex2e'.) If a This is madness. All it has to do is a `which kpsewhich` to find out if a local installation of TeX exists or not. *Then* it can test the version of LaTeX identified, and see if it works, and only go hunting for latex binaries as a last resort. file with the correct name is found, LyX then tries to run it against a test .ltx file to determine if it's a working version of LaTeX. So it might be helpful to echo each directory being searched. By the way, IIRC there have been misadventures in the past caused by people having a both functional and dysfunctional LaTeX installations, with the dysfunctional one first on the path. Absolutely. Some people have truly the weirdest stuff on their systems. But it's a better plan to search for a working version first, and only go looking for a better one if the first one turns out to be a lemon. If I'm reading the script correctly (and that's a big if, since I'm not a Linux user), once it finds a 'latex' file, it stops searching for other 'latex' files even if the one it finds doesn't pass the functionality test. Might be worth checking. Searching for latex is a poor route to take, and should be used only as a last resort. kpsewhich is the key to identifying a working TeX installation. Thanks for all your help...it's working, and all I wanted to do was screenshot it and document the installation process for my readers, which I'm now able to do :-) Now all I have left to do is find a willing vict^H^H^H^Hsucke^H^H^H^H^Hvolunteer to do the same for Windows and Mac. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul Smith wrote: [me] Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre-existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? ///Peter Hello Peter, I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm As I mentioned earlier, this was a fresh install so no previous lyx directory from a previous installation and I am not part of a network. I installed the base lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm first and got an error message that it needed qt or xforms. So I tried rpm -i on lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm next. I got the error message that latex-xft-fonts was missing and also libAiksaurus-1.2.so.0. So I downloaded the font package by searching rpmfind latex-xft-fonts on Google. It turned out not to matter that the font package was for FC3. Next I tried to install the libaiksuarus package mentioned above, but it failed because it needed the libaiksuarus-data package. The *nix packaging system often has multiple dependencies and does not come all neatly bundled like Windows. Since a person can often go back and forth downloading one dependency at a time, then testing, and finding something else is needed, I chose to use yum install libaiksuarus which provides extra stuff, but is convenient if you have space. One has to be connected to the internet for yum to work. Typing yum install * works from the command line in an open terminal. So now the libaiksuarus and the latex-xft-fonts packages were installed so qt* installed nicely. So then LyX installed properly. /usr Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Thanks for all your help...it's working, and all I wanted to do was screenshot it and document the installation process for my readers, which I'm now able to do :-) Now all I have left to do is find a willing vict^H^H^H^Hsucke^H^H^H^H^Hvolunteer to do the same for Windows and Mac. Previously: No matter, all is now serene. ///Peter Oh, how nice. I suppose you were able to get a good screenshot of LyX -- View -- Tex Information -- Latex classes (*.cls) which displayed a partial list of your installed classes? I think that this a good screenshot for documenting a proper installation since that area sometimes fails to resolve due to usr mistakes. The Windows installation is easy, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: [me] Previously: No matter, all is now serene. Oh, how nice. I suppose you were able to get a good screenshot of LyX -- View -- Tex Information -- Latex classes (*.cls) which displayed a partial list of your installed classes? It displayed the whole lot, including the ones I have written locally (which are in $TEXMFLOCAL). Interesting -- despite the LyX RPM having insisted at install time on wanting the RH tetex installed as a dependency, once installed without it it seems to recognise my TeX Collection installation perfectly happily. But this may have been due to stuff being left over from a previous (partial) install. I think that this a good screenshot for documenting a proper installation since that area sometimes fails to resolve due to usr mistakes. It's a very good test, yes. My screenshot in http://research.silmaril.ie/latex/chapter2.html#editors is rather out of date. The Windows installation is easy, We shall see. I'll be installing it under XP/SP2 on a system with the TeX Collection (MiKTeX+TeXnicCenter) preinstalled. This has been very useful for some projects of my own as well, which need to be able to recognise a working TeX installation. Thank you all very much for your help. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: Peter Flynn [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: lyx-users@lists.lyx.org Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 2:28 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs The Windows installation is easy, We shall see. I'll be installing it under XP/SP2 on a system with the TeX Collection (MiKTeX+TeXnicCenter) preinstalled. reLyx has become obsolete. tex2lyx.exe, found on the Wiki is recommended.
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/10/05, Peter Flynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. > >> > >> It can't find the commands kpsewhich and texhash, which is weird > >> because they are both in the global path. The TeX is a new full > >> install from the > >> TeX Collection DVD. > >> > >> How do I get around this? Is the postinstall script SUing to some > >> strange UID (the RPM install is done as root, of course). > >> > >> This happens for both xforms and qt versions (tried both) and now they > >> won't uninstall cleanly either, because they're trying to undo stuff > >> that never got done. > >> > > It's not just kpsewhich and texhash -- both install scripts failed to > > find a working latex executable. > > > > IIRC, the install scripts for look for latex and latex2e by trying to > > execute them. Assuming that your latex executable is on the global path > > and works (which you can test by trying to run it from a shell prompt), > > Yes, all that is working fine. The problem does not appear to lie with > the installation of TeX. > > > you might check whether there's a permissions problem (is the LyX > > install script running under an account that can access the LaTeX > > installation). > > How do I know what account the LyX postinstall script from the RPM has > picked to run as? The RPM was installed as root, of course, but if LyX > has picked something else to use to run its script, that is hidden from > sight -- what's the best way to find out (and why on earth would they > want to do such a weird thing anyway?). > > kpsewhich and all the TeX binaries are in /usr/local/bin, which is in > every user's path, AFAIK. > > At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not > installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX > Collection DVD. > > Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Peter Flynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul A. Rubin wrote: Peter Flynn wrote: I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX Collection DVD. Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? ///Peter Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. I had to reinstall FC4 and haven't reinstalled LyX. So I can test 1.3.6 pretty easily. Sometimes it matters where you get your rpms from. I will do it now and follow up pretty soon. Regards, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Peter Flynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul A. Rubin wrote: Peter Flynn wrote: I just tried to install Lyx from the 1.3.6-1 RPMs. At the moment could someone note on the web site that LyX is not installable with the RPMs on stock FC4 with the teTeX from the TeX Collection DVD. Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? ///Peter Well, I installed LyX with yum install lyx on FC4. But that installs 1.3.5 by default. I had to reinstall FC4 and haven't reinstalled LyX. So I can test 1.3.6 pretty easily. Sometimes it matters where you get your rpms from. I will do it now and follow up pretty soon. Regards, Stephen I checked that I had the rpms on my fat32 transfer file drive before starting this. They have li in the filename. I also notice that I downloaded qt and xforms; one of which also needs to be installed. Did you install the qt rpm? lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm or lyx-xforms-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm and the main LyX file: lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm I will test this by installing the noarch first. I think 586 means mmx support and does not cause a problem. I'm pretty sure I've read 1.3.6 works with FC4. Will let you know, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Paul Smith wrote: [me] Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre-existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
On 9/10/05, Peter Flynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? > > > > I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: > > > > 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; > > > > 2. yum install lyx. > > Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work > over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... > > But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre-existed > from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? The .lyx directory is a (hidden) directory placed in your home directory, which contains the data of your configuration of LyX (chosen viewers, fonts, keyboard bindings, etc.). When you install LyX, LyX will create .lyx if it does not exist, but using your previous .lyx directory will save you the time of configuring LyX again. Paul
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Paul Smith wrote: 2. yum install lyx. Aaaaggghhh! *Never*, never, never do this if you already have TeX. Especially not if you have already carefully removed the outdated mess that is the RH kludge of tetex, and replaced it with the real tetex from the TeX Collection DVD. yum fails to see that you already have TeX installed, so it will try to download and install the old RH tetex all over again -- the one I so carefully got rid of when I installed FC4. Fortunately, yum pauses before installing, to ask if this is right, so you get the chance to abort it. Someone who wrote yum needs praising for doing this, and someone needs to check about using the old RH tetex RPMs without testing first for the existence of a TeX installation. In the process, however, I noticed that yum wanted to install lyx-1.3.6-4.fc4.i386.rpm, not the lyx-1.3.6-1fc3_qt.i386.rpm or lyx-1.3.6-1fc3_xforms.i386.rpm which are advertised on lyx.org. And it wants something called aiksaurus, which looks quite useful. rpm -Uiv --nodeps happily stamped all over previous traces of LyX installations, but as expected: var/tmp/rpm-tmp.972: line 3: texhash: command not found error: %postun(lyx-1.3.6-1_qt.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.972: line 3: texhash: command not found error: %postun(lyx-1.3.6-1_xforms.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127 Even money says that the install script is hard-wired to look in wherever RH's tetex puts the texhash (and doubtless kpsewhich) binary, instead of relying on the path to pick up the right one. No matter, all is now serene. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Paul A. Rubin wrote: Sorry, my wording was fuzzy. I don't have a working Linux box handy these days, but I assume that LyX runs with the permissions of whatever user is logged in. So if you can run latex directly, presumably when you run the LyX configure script it has the same permissions. Actually the other way round: RPMs *have* to be installed as root, and the configure script is built into the RPM, so it automatically executes *as root* immediately after unpacking LyX...the user doesn't enter into this at all. If you're motivated, you could hack the configure script to add a couple I don't have access to configure scripts embedded in RPMs unless I go get the Source RPM, and life's too short to dig into those. of echo commands that might tell you at least where things are going south. If I'm reading the configure script correctly, the quest for a working copy of LaTeX is done in two parts. First, every directory on the path is scanned for either 'latex' or 'latex2e'. (More precisely, the path is scanned for 'latex', then if necessary for 'latex2e'.) If a This is madness. All it has to do is a `which kpsewhich` to find out if a local installation of TeX exists or not. *Then* it can test the version of LaTeX identified, and see if it works, and only go hunting for latex binaries as a last resort. file with the correct name is found, LyX then tries to run it against a test .ltx file to determine if it's a working version of LaTeX. So it might be helpful to echo each directory being searched. By the way, IIRC there have been misadventures in the past caused by people having a both functional and dysfunctional LaTeX installations, with the dysfunctional one first on the path. Absolutely. Some people have truly the weirdest stuff on their systems. But it's a better plan to search for a working version first, and only go looking for a better one if the first one turns out to be a lemon. If I'm reading the script correctly (and that's a big "if", since I'm not a Linux user), once it finds a 'latex' file, it stops searching for other 'latex' files even if the one it finds doesn't pass the functionality test. Might be worth checking. Searching for "latex" is a poor route to take, and should be used only as a last resort. kpsewhich is the key to identifying a working TeX installation. Thanks for all your help...it's working, and all I wanted to do was screenshot it and document the installation process for my readers, which I'm now able to do :-) Now all I have left to do is find a willing vict^H^H^H^Hsucke^H^H^H^H^Hvolunteer to do the same for Windows and Mac. ///Peter
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Peter Flynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 10:57 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Paul Smith wrote: [me] Is anyone out there using LyX on FC4? I am using LyX on FC4 with no problem. The way I installed it was: 1. copied my own .lyx directory into my home directory; 2. yum install lyx. Excellent! Never used yum before, so here goes. I wonder will it work over the top of the mess that the RPMs left behind them... But what is the .lyx directory you mentioned? Something that pre-existed from an earlier installation? Or something you downloaded? ///Peter Hello Peter, I just finished installing LyX 1.3.6 on FC4. I used these files. latex-xft-fonts-0.1-2.1.fc3.rf.noarch.rpm libaiksaurus-1.2_0-1.2.1-2mdk.i586.rpm lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm As I mentioned earlier, this was a fresh install so no previous lyx directory from a previous installation and I am not part of a network. I installed the base "lyx-1.3.6-1.li.noarch.rpm" first and got an error message that it needed qt or xforms. So I tried rpm -i on "lyx-qt-1.3.6-1.li.fc4.i586.rpm" next. I got the error message that latex-xft-fonts was missing and also libAiksaurus-1.2.so.0. So I downloaded the font package by searching "rpmfind latex-xft-fonts" on Google. It turned out not to matter that the font package was for FC3. Next I tried to install the libaiksuarus package mentioned above, but it failed because it needed the libaiksuarus-data package. The *nix packaging system often has multiple dependencies and does not come all neatly bundled like Windows. Since a person can often go back and forth downloading one dependency at a time, then testing, and finding something else is needed, I chose to use "yum install libaiksuarus" which provides extra stuff, but is convenient if you have space. One has to be connected to the internet for yum to work. Typing yum install * works from the command line in an open terminal. So now the libaiksuarus and the latex-xft-fonts packages were installed so qt* installed nicely. So then LyX installed properly. /usr Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Peter Flynn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2005 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Thanks for all your help...it's working, and all I wanted to do was screenshot it and document the installation process for my readers, which I'm now able to do :-) Now all I have left to do is find a willing vict^H^H^H^Hsucke^H^H^H^H^Hvolunteer to do the same for Windows and Mac. Previously: No matter, all is now serene. ///Peter Oh, how nice. I suppose you were able to get a good screenshot of LyX --> View --> Tex Information --> Latex classes (*.cls) which displayed a partial list of your installed classes? I think that this a good screenshot for documenting a proper installation since that area sometimes fails to resolve due to usr mistakes. The Windows installation is easy, Stephen
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: [me] Previously: No matter, all is now serene. Oh, how nice. I suppose you were able to get a good screenshot of LyX --> View --> Tex Information --> Latex classes (*.cls) which displayed a partial list of your installed classes? It displayed the whole lot, including the ones I have written locally (which are in $TEXMFLOCAL). Interesting -- despite the LyX RPM having insisted at install time on wanting the RH tetex installed as a dependency, once installed without it it seems to recognise my TeX Collection installation perfectly happily. But this may have been due to stuff being left over from a previous (partial) install. I think that this a good screenshot for documenting a proper installation since that area sometimes fails to resolve due to usr mistakes. It's a very good test, yes. My screenshot in http://research.silmaril.ie/latex/chapter2.html#editors is rather out of date. The Windows installation is easy, We shall see. I'll be installing it under XP/SP2 on a system with the TeX Collection (MiKTeX+TeXnicCenter) preinstalled. This has been very useful for some projects of my own as well, which need to be able to recognise a working TeX installation. Thank you all very much for your help. ///Peter
