Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 01:21:46AM -0400, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: quote who=Norbert Preining date=Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 10:20:12AM +0200 One idea would be to put the package as Kohda-san prepared it into svn and we try to care all together for this... This sounds like the best idea to me as well. Regarsd, Mako I've added mako to the svn.debian.org debian-tex group on alioth. Julian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Hi all! On Mit, 30 Aug 2006, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: I think that the best idea is to the put the packages as they exist into SVN and then work them from there. I can merge the (small amount of) Ok, I have done it. package names xetex and xdvipdfmx NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE NOTE I have included ONLY the files which are changed/added by the debian patch AND have set the mergeWithUpstream property on the debian subdirectory. You should put the original tarballs into xetex/tarballs xdvipdfmx/tarballs (not checking them in) and use svn-buildpackage. See the HOWTO in /usr/share/doc/svn-buildpackage for more information. Short explanation: svn-buildpackage uses the same command line arguments as dpkg-buildpackage (-us -uc -rfakeroot etc etc), PLUS some more. For example: --svn-export only exports everything and merges the orig.tar.gz with the stuff in the svn depot --svn-tag final build: Export build tag dch -i --svn-retag --svn-only-tag etc etc See also the manpage. Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- ESHER (n.) One of those push tapes installed in public washrooms enabling the user to wash their trousers without actually getting into the basin. The most powerful esher of recent years was 'damped down' by Red Adair after an incredible sixty-eight days' fight in Manchester's Piccadilly Station. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
quote who=Ralf Stubner date=Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 10:19:32PM +0200 some time ago you have changed this RFP into an ITP. Recently there have been some discussions on debian-tex-maint concerning XeTeX and xdvipdfmx, most of which are archived in bug #365672. Before going any further, we would like to know what's the state on your side. Have you made progress packaging XeTeX? I think that the best idea is to the put the packages as they exist into SVN and then work them from there. I can merge the (small amount of) work that I've done into there if it's still applicable and then someone (myself or someone else) can do the upload -- it doesn't really matter. I changed the RFP into an ITP because I really intended to package this and nobody else had claimed it at the time. If others are more anxious and have more time than I do, please don't let me stand in anybodies way. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
quote who=Norbert Preining date=Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 10:20:12AM +0200 One idea would be to put the package as Kohda-san prepared it into svn and we try to care all together for this... This sounds like the best idea to me as well. Regarsd, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 00:26 +0100, Daniel Glassey wrote: Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Description: XeTeX extends the TeX typesetting system (and macro packages such as LaTeX and ConTeXt) to have native support for the Unicode character set, including complex Asian scripts, and for OpenType and TrueType fonts. Hi Benjamin, some time ago you have changed this RFP into an ITP. Recently there have been some discussions on debian-tex-maint concerning XeTeX and xdvipdfmx, most of which are archived in bug #365672. Before going any further, we would like to know what's the state on your side. Have you made progress packaging XeTeX? cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Dear Kohda-san! Good to hear from you. How was the summer in Japan? If it was as hot as the July in Europe it must have been very bad, together with the humitity! Some comment to xetex: On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: From curiosity, I've packaged xetex 0.995 (and xdvipdfmx 0.3) for Debian/unstable. (I don't mean to maintain it though. I guess it would be best TeXLive includes XeTeX.) Next version will include it. I think about making a intermediate release of texlive packages with 2006~svnYYMMDD so that we can get xetex. We will see. and I tried to follow TeX-Policy as far as I can and used dh_installtex (excellent tool!) for the first time. I've felt strong need to update Yes, it helps a lot. One point I found in your package: You don't create a link xelatex - xetex in /usr/bin. Has to be done by hand. But it would modify language.dat (Policy violation) because, with teTeX, huhyphn.tex and srhyphc.tex caused problem with xetex (seems well-known problem). Yes, it is, see discussion on the texlive mailing list. Is there any smart way to do the same without violating Policy? Hard, very hard ATM. Changing the language.dat, hmm. With TeXLive there is no problem (nor no Policy violation). Well, you should conflict with texlive-lang-hungarian and texlive-lang-other, otherwise it breaks. http://www1.pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp/~kohda/tex/xetex/sample_linux.tar.gz (CJK, Arabic, Hindi, Ethiopic documents etc.) Thanks, after some changes to the font names I was able to compile several of the docs on my texlive system. Great work!! I guess many of you can enjoy XeTeX really ;-) Will see... Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- CORFU (n.) The dullest person you met during the course of your holiday. Also the only one who failed to understand that the exchanging of addresses at the end of a holiday is merely a social ritual and is absolutely not an invitation to phone you up and turn up unannounced on your doorstep three months later. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Dear Kohda-san! On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: but it has been very hot even this week... Rain here, heavy rain ... Next version will include it. I think about making a intermediate release of texlive packages with 2006~svnYYMMDD so that we can get xetex. We will see. Good, so there is no need to worry about dynamic linking with libkpathsea etc. any more. We'll see, first priority: texlive into testing and then survive the bug avalanche ;-) One point I found in your package: You don't create a link xelatex - xetex in /usr/bin. Has to be done by hand. Ah, perhaps I modified postinst in a wrong way. Thanks. Hmm why the postinst? The link should be created in the rules files I suppose. It should be shipped with the data.tar.gz. dh_installtex does *NOT* create the necessary symlinks. (Should it do it?) Thanks, after some changes to the font names I was able to compile several of the docs on my texlive system. It is difficult to find out a standard font for a foreign I guess I had some fonts not installed. After installing all of them I could compile all but the Arabic.tex file, although I have installed the font you mention in the source code. Anyway, great work! Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- TOTTERIDGE (n.) The ridiculous two-inch hunch that people adopt when arriving late for the theatre in the vain and futile hope that it will minimise either the embarrassment of the lack of visibility for the rest of the audience. c.f. hickling. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 08:45:36 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: Dear Kohda-san! Hi Norbert, Good to hear from you. How was the summer in Japan? If it was as hot as the July in Europe it must have been very bad, together with the humitity! Well, I've tried to think it was as bad as normal summer, but it has been very hot even this week... Some comment to xetex: Next version will include it. I think about making a intermediate release of texlive packages with 2006~svnYYMMDD so that we can get xetex. We will see. Good, so there is no need to worry about dynamic linking with libkpathsea etc. any more. One point I found in your package: You don't create a link xelatex - xetex in /usr/bin. Has to be done by hand. Ah, perhaps I modified postinst in a wrong way. Thanks. Is there any smart way to do the same without violating Policy? Hard, very hard ATM. Changing the language.dat, hmm. With TeXLive there is no problem (nor no Policy violation). Well, you should conflict with texlive-lang-hungarian and texlive-lang-other, otherwise it breaks. So only because I was a lucky. http://www1.pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp/~kohda/tex/xetex/sample_linux.tar.gz (CJK, Arabic, Hindi, Ethiopic documents etc.) Thanks, after some changes to the font names I was able to compile several of the docs on my texlive system. It is difficult to find out a standard font for a foreign language. I welcome any comment or advice. Regards, 2006-8-25(Fri) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda kohda AT debian.org Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: From curiosity, I've packaged xetex 0.995 (and xdvipdfmx 0.3) for Debian/unstable. (I don't mean to maintain it though. I guess it would be best TeXLive includes XeTeX.) Next version will include it. I think about making a intermediate release of texlive packages with 2006~svnYYMMDD so that we can get xetex. We will see. While that would be good, I think it would be even better if someone maintains a separate xetex package. xetex has a much faster development process currently than texlive. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 09:47:55 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: Dear Kohda-san! Hi Norbert, Ah, perhaps I modified postinst in a wrong way. Thanks. Hmm why the postinst? The link should be created in the rules files I suppose. It should be shipped with the data.tar.gz. dh_installtex does *NOT* create the necessary symlinks. (Should it do it?) Only quick look, original postinst contained, among others, texlinks --silent so I guessed removing it could be wrong. But no problem. I just finished to build new package in which the link was created by rules. Thanks, after some changes to the font names I was able to compile several of the docs on my texlive system. It is difficult to find out a standard font for a foreign I guess I had some fonts not installed. After installing all of them I could compile all but the Arabic.tex file, although I have installed the font you mention in the source code. Anyway, great work! Ah, sorry, I forgot to mention but the Arabic.tex can be compiled only with xetex 0.994a. I don't know why but 0.995 failed to compile it. Regards,2006-8-25(Fri) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda kohda AT debian.org Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ah, perhaps I modified postinst in a wrong way. Thanks. Hmm why the postinst? The link should be created in the rules files I suppose. It should be shipped with the data.tar.gz. dh_installtex does *NOT* create the necessary symlinks. (Should it do it?) If we want to do that, we should modify texlinks to accept a $DESTDIR and call that one from dh_installtex. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Hi all! On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Frank Küster wrote: suppose. It should be shipped with the data.tar.gz. dh_installtex does *NOT* create the necessary symlinks. (Should it do it?) If we want to do that, we should modify texlinks to accept a $DESTDIR and call that one from dh_installtex. On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: Only quick look, original postinst contained, among others, texlinks --silent so I guessed removing it could be wrong. Ahhh. Well I am against calling texlinks in the postinst and creating files which are *NOT* removed at remove/purge time. So: if we provide the functionality in dh_installtex, it should create the links by itself (without texlinks) in debian/$(package)/usr/bin and should NOT put code like texlinks into the postinst script. Or better, devs create the symlinks by themselves in the rules file. What do you think, which of the two options is better? Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- SHIFNAL (n.,vb.) An awkward shuffling walk caused by two or more people in a hurry accidentally getting into the same segment of revolving door. A similar effect is achieved by people entering three-legged races unwisely joined at the neck instead of the ankles. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Frank Küster wrote: Next version will include it. I think about making a intermediate release of texlive packages with 2006~svnYYMMDD so that we can get xetex. We will see. While that would be good, I think it would be even better if someone maintains a separate xetex package. xetex has a much faster development process currently than texlive. True, absolutely true. The only question is who? I have not enough knowledge on xetex etc to do this. And not enough time. One idea would be to put the package as Kohda-san prepared it into svn and we try to care all together for this... Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- BISHOP'S CAUNDLE An opening gambit before a game of chess whereby the missing pieces are replaced by small ornaments from the mantelpiece. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 10:20 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Frank Küster wrote: While that would be good, I think it would be even better if someone maintains a separate xetex package. xetex has a much faster development process currently than texlive. ACK True, absolutely true. The only question is who? I have not enough knowledge on xetex etc to do this. And not enough time. First of all #365672 has been changed from an RFP to an ITP some time ago. I can't remember right now who did this, though. This is one obvious candidate. The other obvious candidate would be myself. I do have the necessary knoweldge on XeTeX, fonts and stuff like that. But I am a bit short on time right now. One idea would be to put the package as Kohda-san prepared it into svn and we try to care all together for this... In that case I would definitely try to help as much as possible. One really difficult task is getting the hyphenation patterns right for cooperation with both teTeX and TeX Live. The hack I am using for my personal installation is not really good ... Besides XeTeX one also needs xdvipdfmx (also an ITP). Here the relationship with the existing dvipdfmx packages are non trivial. At least when build with upstream's Debian packaging the two packages have to conflict since they contain some identical files. Given that there recently was a case where functionality from dvipdfmx was lost in xdvipdfmx, it probably would be best to not install these files in the xdvipdfmx package but depend on dvipdfmx instead. cheerio ralf
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Hi all! On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Ralf Stubner wrote: True, absolutely true. The only question is who? I have not enough knowledge on xetex etc to do this. And not enough time. First of all #365672 has been changed from an RFP to an ITP some time ago. I can't remember right now who did this, though. This is one obvious candidate. The other obvious candidate would be myself. I do Could you contact him: Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] have the necessary knoweldge on XeTeX, fonts and stuff like that. But I am a bit short on time right now. One idea would be to put the package as Kohda-san prepared it into svn and we try to care all together for this... In that case I would definitely try to help as much as possible. Well let's ask Benjamin first, whether he has done something in this direction and whether he still wants to do the packaging. We could also give him svn access and check in the stuff into svn, so that we (all of us) can get the xetex thingy right. One really difficult task is getting the hyphenation patterns right for cooperation with both teTeX and TeX Live. The hack I am using for my personal installation is not really good ... This can be worked out. Besides XeTeX one also needs xdvipdfmx (also an ITP). Here the relationship with the existing dvipdfmx packages are non trivial. At Ok, but same approach as above, or? Best wishes Norbert --- Dr. Norbert Preining preining AT logic DOT at Università di Siena gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094 --- DETCHANT (n.) (Of the hands or feet.) Prunelike after an overlong bath. --- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all!
On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
suppose. It should be shipped with the data.tar.gz. dh_installtex does
*NOT* create the necessary symlinks. (Should it do it?)
If we want to do that, we should modify texlinks to accept a $DESTDIR
and call that one from dh_installtex.
On Fre, 25 Aug 2006, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Only quick look, original postinst contained, among others,
texlinks --silent so I guessed removing it could be wrong.
Ahhh.
Well I am against calling texlinks in the postinst and creating files
which are *NOT* removed at remove/purge time.
Yes, this should definitely not be done.
So: if we provide the functionality in dh_installtex, it should create the
links by itself (without texlinks) in debian/$(package)/usr/bin
and should NOT put code like texlinks into the postinst script.
Or better, devs create the symlinks by themselves in the rules file.
What do you think, which of the two options is better?
Since the symlinks and their targets can be deduced from a
configuration file, namely the fmtutil.cnf snippet, I think it would
be a good idea to include this in dh_installtex. However, I don't think
this is particularly important; there's probably other things to do that
are more pressing.
The reason why I was mentioning texlinks and a DESTDIR option is that
the code for parsing fmtutil.cnf, deciding about and generating symlinks
already exists. And I had now a short look at the code in texlinks: I
think it has already nearly everything we need. A call like
texlinks --cnffile debian/40Foo.cnf debian/foo/usr/bin/
would create the symlinks, just that it checks whether the targets
exist. Here's a patch:
--- /usr/bin/texlinks 2006-08-02 16:27:58.0 +0200
+++ bin/texlinks2006-08-25 13:29:08.0 +0200
@@ -49,6 +49,8 @@
--silent
-ssilently skip over existing scripts / binaries
instead of creating a warning
+ --allow-dangling
+ -dallow dangling symlinks
directories is an optional list of directories in which to operate.
If no directories are specified the list of directories depends on the
@@ -228,6 +230,7 @@
multiplatform=false
verbose=false
silent=false
+ allow_dangling=false
thisdir=`pwd`
: ${KPSE_DOT=$thisdir}; export KPSE_DOT
selfautoloc=`kpsewhich --expand-var='$SELFAUTOLOC'`
@@ -242,6 +245,7 @@
--v*|-v) verbose=true;;
--s*|-s) silent=true;;
--m*|-m) multiplatform=true;;
+ --allow-dangling|-d) allow_dangling=true;;
-*) errmsg fmtutil: unknown option \`$1' ignored.;;
*) break;;
esac
@@ -290,7 +294,7 @@
main_args_while=$@
test x$fmt = x$engine continue
- if test -f $d/$engine; then
+ if test -f $d/$engine || test $allow_dangling = true; then
install_link $engine $d/$fmt
else
verbose_echo $d/$engine: engine does not exist. Skipping...
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:06:48 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: Besides XeTeX one also needs xdvipdfmx (also an ITP). Here the relationship with the existing dvipdfmx packages are non trivial. At least when build with upstream's Debian packaging the two packages have to conflict since they contain some identical files. Given that there recently was a case where functionality from dvipdfmx was lost in xdvipdfmx, it probably would be best to not install these files in the xdvipdfmx package but depend on dvipdfmx instead. I splitted the original xdvipdfmx into xdvipdfmx (almost binary only) and xdvipdfmx-data (CMaps and config files) temporarily and (my) xdvipdfmx depends on dvipdfmx | xdvipdfmx-data so one can test two environment, xdvipdfmx + dvipdfmx (your suggestion) and xdvipdfmx + xdvipdfmx-data (=the original xdvipdfmx). Regards, 2006-8-25(Fri) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda kohda AT debian.org Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:21:31 +0900 (JST), I wrote: On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:43:17 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: Current SVN is better. ;-) I see, I'll try it later. From curiosity, I've packaged xetex 0.995 (and xdvipdfmx 0.3) for Debian/unstable. (I don't mean to maintain it though. I guess it would be best TeXLive includes XeTeX.) It installed files under /usr/share (instead of /usr/local/share) and I tried to follow TeX-Policy as far as I can and used dh_installtex (excellent tool!) for the first time. I've felt strong need to update my knowledge on TeX packaging methods. But it would modify language.dat (Policy violation) because, with teTeX, huhyphn.tex and srhyphc.tex caused problem with xetex (seems well-known problem). Is there any smart way to do the same without violating Policy? With TeXLive there is no problem (nor no Policy violation). You can get them from deb(-src) http://www1.pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp/~kohda/debian/xetex/ ./ also I could modify some sample files in XeTeX_doc.zip so that they could be compiled under Debian (or Linux). As you know, a TeX source for XeTeX is system dependent so one can't compile sample files for MacOSX under Debian. You can get it from http://www1.pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp/~kohda/tex/xetex/sample_linux.tar.gz (CJK, Arabic, Hindi, Ethiopic documents etc.) You need to install many ttf-* fonts packages and each file includes comment what ttf-* is/are necessary for itself. I guess many of you can enjoy XeTeX really ;-) Regards, 2006-8-25(Fri) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda kohda AT debian.org Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
On Sun, 7 May 2006 19:40:10 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote:
now. Also, there are some interesting questions concerning the proper
placement of XeTeX specific files in the TEXMF tree.
I've installed xetex 0.944a in my Debian/unstable (with TeXlive,
I rebuilt xetex so that xetex was installable with texlive).
Current SVN is better. ;-)
This would be very small problem but I noticed that our tex-common
installed texmf.cnf with settings for xetex;
% XeTeX
TEXINPUTS.xelatex = .;$TEXMF/tex/{latex,generic,}//
TEXINPUTS.xetex = .;$TEXMF/tex/{plain,generic,}//
(from where it comes? from texlive?)
I don't know ehere these settings come from, but stock teTeX 3.0
contains the same. But then teTeX and TeX Live used to coordinate their
texmf.cnf settings anyway.
This may be not bad but, under this settings, I suspect that
there could be a problem.
* there are some duplicated files in XeTeX and TeXliv/teTeX,
for example, keyval.sty, xkeyval.sty are such files.
* under the above settings (and the current xetex package)
xetex/xelatex find keyval.sty of TeXlive (not of XeTeX itself).
I don't think that these LaTeX packages would cause any problems. I
don't know why they are included in the XeTeX sources, but one could
either omit them, if the versions in teTeX and TeX Live are recent
enough. Or one could install them in /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/... such
that LaTeX formats using other engines can profit from updated versions,
too.
Actually XeTeX specific stuff (fontspec, xunicode, ...) raise an error
when called with, eg, pdfTeX.
The more interesting thing are the pattern files for hyphenation. Many
of them should be usable with both XeTeX and other TeX engines. But I
don't know to what extend this has been tested. Others (eg for greek)
are not compatible.
Of course the directory structure of XeTeX would be changed
when it is included in TeXlive or packaged for Debian but,
possibly, it will be put under TEXMF/tex/xetex, TEXMF/xelatex
so the above (not yet used) settings looked wrong.
I guess possible fix will be
* remove the above settings completely, or
* change the settings something like
TEXINPUTS.xelatex = .;$TEXMF/tex/{xelatex,latex,generic,}//
TEXINPUTS.xetex = .;$TEXMF/tex/{xetex,plain,generic,}//
BTW, is the license ok for Debian?
Is the license problematic?
I simply wasn't sure. It has been changed recently to something which
looks like an MIT style license though, which should cause no problems.
cheerio
ralf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:43:17 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: Current SVN is better. ;-) I see, I'll try it later. * there are some duplicated files in XeTeX and TeXliv/teTeX, for example, keyval.sty, xkeyval.sty are such files. * under the above settings (and the current xetex package) xetex/xelatex find keyval.sty of TeXlive (not of XeTeX itself). I don't think that these LaTeX packages would cause any problems. I don't know why they are included in the XeTeX sources, but one could either omit them, if the versions in teTeX and TeX Live are recent enough. Or one could install them in /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/... such that LaTeX formats using other engines can profit from updated versions, too. Actually XeTeX specific stuff (fontspec, xunicode, ...) raise an error when called with, eg, pdfTeX. The more interesting thing are the pattern files for hyphenation. Many of them should be usable with both XeTeX and other TeX engines. But I don't know to what extend this has been tested. Others (eg for greek) are not compatible. Okay, I'll invetigate relation between XeTeX and normal(?) TeX and if I find something important (or what I guess important) I'll report it/them here. Is the license problematic? I simply wasn't sure. It has been changed recently to something which looks like an MIT style license though, which should cause no problems. Good to know. Thanks for your kind advice. Regards,2006-8-9(Wed) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda kohda AT debian.org Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#365672: RFP: xetex - An extension of TeX with Unicode and OpenType support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Description: XeTeX extends the TeX typesetting system (and macro packages such as LaTeX and ConTeXt) to have native support for the Unicode character set, including complex Asian scripts, and for OpenType and TrueType fonts. License: CPL 1.0 - see below Website: http://scripts.sil.org/xetex_linux Upstream has some basic packaging done but currently README.Debian in svn says: xetex for Debian - Currently not compliant with Debian policy: installs files into /usr/local/share/texmf lacks man page, needs other docs, etc probably lots of other details too So upstream will need help to clean it up before submitting. Anyone from the Debian TeX or TeXLive projects that would like to help please head over to the xetex mailing list at http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex Regards, Daniel Common Public License Version 1.0 THE ACCOMPANYING PROGRAM IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS COMMON PUBLIC LICENSE (AGREEMENT). ANY USE, REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROGRAM CONSTITUTES RECIPIENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THIS AGREEMENT. 1. DEFINITIONS Contribution means: a) in the case of the initial Contributor, the initial code and documentation distributed under this Agreement, and b) in the case of each subsequent Contributor: i) changes to the Program, and ii) additions to the Program; where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate from and are distributed by that particular Contributor. A Contribution 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added to the Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on such Contributor's behalf. Contributions do not include additions to the Program which: (i) are separate modules of software distributed in conjunction with the Program under their own license agreement, and (ii) are not derivative works of the Program. Contributor means any person or entity that distributes the Program. Licensed Patents mean patent claims licensable by a Contributor which are necessarily infringed by the use or sale of its Contribution alone or when combined with the Program. Program means the Contributions distributed in accordance with this Agreement. Recipient means anyone who receives the Program under this Agreement, including all Contributors. 2. GRANT OF RIGHTS a) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and object code form. b) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell, import and otherwise transfer the Contribution of such Contributor, if any, in source code and object code form. This patent license shall apply to the combination of the Contribution and the Program if, at the time the Contribution is added by the Contributor, such addition of the Contribution causes such combination to be covered by the Licensed Patents. The patent license shall not apply to any other combinations which include the Contribution. No hardware per se is licensed hereunder. c) Recipient understands that although each Contributor grants the licenses to its Contributions set forth herein, no assurances are provided by any Contributor that the Program does not infringe the patent or other intellectual property rights of any other entity. Each Contributor disclaims any liability to Recipient for claims brought by any other entity based on infringement of intellectual property rights or otherwise. As a condition to exercising the rights and licenses granted hereunder, each Recipient hereby assumes sole responsibility to secure any other intellectual property rights needed, if any. For example, if a third party patent license is required to allow Recipient to distribute the Program, it is Recipient's responsibility to acquire that license before distributing the Program. d) Each Contributor represents that to its knowledge it has sufficient copyright rights in its Contribution, if any, to grant the copyright license set forth in this Agreement. 3. REQUIREMENTS A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that: a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and b) its license agreement: i) effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all warranties and conditions, express and implied, including warranties or conditions of title and non-infringement, and implied warranties or conditions of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose; ii) effectively excludes on behalf of all Contributors
