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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.
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: 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.
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: 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.
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: 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."
