Re:
Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > I have a user here requesting an upgrade to AMSLaTeX 2.0. That's wise! > I'm not well > versed in TeX internals You don't need to be... > and don't feel very comfortable just replacing > chunks of the distribution. You don't need to! Just RTFM and create a local texmf tree. It's done in $TEXMF/web2c/texmf.cnfwith higher priority. > This is made worse by the fact that I try to > stick to RPMs when at all possible; it makes maintenance so much easier. True in general, false with respect to teTeX. From what I gather from this list there is a great number of broken teTeX rpm's out there. And see below... > > > So: is there any version of teTeX out there containing AMSLaTeX 2.0 that I > can easily turn into RPMs? Thanks, > -- > Jason L Tibbitts III - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 713/743-3486 - 660PGH - 94 PC800 >System Manager: University of Houston Department of Mathematics teTeX will compile in most unix systems including some obsolete ones and even when that is not possible binaries are available from CTAN for the non beta releases. Everything will be in by default /usr/local/teTeX or /usr/local/share/teTeX or whatever suits one's fancy so files will be insulated from other stuff making rpm's an irrelevancy. Normally installation from source will involve customizing texmf.cnf, running texconfig and redifining $PATH for users which is hardly complicated. Installing from source takes about an hour in a Pentium III with about half an hour compile time. It is a great way to detect broken compilation environments. A minimally organized system administrator should be able to make teTeX available from a central NFS server to unixes in a Department by installing texmf once for each major upgrade and compiling and installing the binaries once for each unix variant (an extremely organized system administrator might even be able to add NT). Of course most linux distributions are not prepared with this in mind. The current teTeX _beta_ contains AMSLaTeX 2.0. Possibly teTeX 1.0.7 also contains AMSLaTeX 2.0. Sorry if I sound a bit put off by this kind of question but it just contained too many unproven assumptions. -- João Palhoto Matos http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~jmatos Departamento de Matemática Instituto Superior Técnico Lisboa mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: teTeX 1.0 vs. 0.4
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Fred Donck wrote: > Thus spoke "Staszek Wawrykiewicz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > ... Now that the distribution has been upgraded to v1.0 > > > I see problems that epsf.sty and colordvi.sty are no longer part of the > > > distribution. > > Thanks for the reply. I couldn't reply earlier because I've been away last week. > > > > > Both epsf.sty and colordvi.sty are included in every *standard* TeX > > distribution, so something went wrong with your upgrade. > > or teTeX in incomplete? > > > Please check your ./texmf/tex/generic/dvips/ > > In teTeX-1.0.7 it's actually ./texmf/tex/plain/dvips > > Looking in this subdir I only see a couple of .tex files : > > ksfdo0@kseu443 plain/dvips > ls -l > total 171 > -rw-r--r-- 1 ksfdo0 ept-is 2973 Oct 31 1998 blackdvi.tex > -rw-r--r-- 1 ksfdo0 ept-is 8301 Mar 6 1999 colordvi.tex > -rw-r--r-- 1 ksfdo0 ept-is 132275 Oct 31 1998 dvips.tex > -rw-r--r-- 1 ksfdo0 ept-is 2025 Oct 31 1998 dvipsmac.tex > -rw-r--r-- 1 ksfdo0 ept-is 22750 Dec 19 09:46 epsf.tex > -rw-r--r-- 1 ksfdo0 ept-is 1936 Oct 31 1998 rotate.tex > -rw-r--r-- 1 ksfdo0 ept-is 1029 Oct 31 1998 rotsample.tex > ksfdo0@kseu443 plain/dvips > > > > It should be there... or you forgot to rebuild ls-R databases: > > run texhash > > > > Staszek Wawrykiewicz > > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- End of "Staszek Wawrykiewicz's" Quoted Text --- > > I installed a fresh copy of teTeX-1.0.7 with teTeX-texmf-1.0.2 and the > beforementioned style-files are not in the distribution and are also not > generated. Am I doing something wrong here? > > Thanks for your help. > > > Please read the documentation for graphicx. This matter is unrelated to teTeX proper. -- João Palhoto Matos http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~jmatos Departamento de Matemática Instituto Superior Técnico Lisboa mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: missing phvb8r.vf
Karlheinz Eckmeier 46372 wrote: > > I've been running teTeX with pdftex (3.14159-13d) and would like to > upgrade pdftex to version (3.14159-14e). That same version of pdftex is present in the teTeX beta. It might be simpler, if you have a fast internet connection and trust teTeX betas (I certainly do!), to install the latest beta than dealing with all inevitable dependencies that Thomas has already solved. > Now pdftex-14e dumps a core at me because its missing some virtual > font file (i.e. fonts/vf/adobe/helvetic/phvb8r.vf). The file is also > missing in the teTeX-texmf-1.0.tar.gz file I've got! There is a psfonts.map file present in the teTeX beta with a line phvb8r Helvetica-Bold "TeXBase1Encoding ReEncodeFont" <8r.enc and no phvb8r.vf file so I suspect that no such file really exists and you'll have to deal with fontmap files and other more or less intricate matters. -- João Palhoto Matos http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~jmatos Departamento de Matemática Instituto Superior Técnico Lisboa mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: now I think this is a bug
On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Thomas Esser wrote: > This glibc is a very recent version. So, the rest of your system is > likely to be very "bleeding edge", too? > > Well, I suspect that we run into some compiler bug here... > > Thomas > Hi again: This is the same problem I had reported on some time ago. It's probably a gcc 2.96 bug and simply affects libkpathsea.a (and any binaries dependent on this). Probably one can bypass it by replacing libkpathsea.a by a version compiled on a RH 6.2 system (egcs-2.91.66) and "make clean; make" in the affected directories. For me it worked for xdvi. I don't have the time or knowledge to investigate this further. One can get a feeling for gcc 2.96 problems by reading for instance http://root.cern.ch/root/roottalk/roottalk00/2750.html -- João Palhoto Matos http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~jmatos Departamento de Matemática Instituto Superior Técnico Lisboa mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dvips/bluesky/bakoma/type1 fonts/frustration
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Nik Ingle wrote: > > > I hope this is a good place for this message, as I saw hints of similar > problems in the archives. > > I am running tetex-dvips-1.0.7-7.i386.rpm on a RH7 installation > > I am trying to get dvips to use type1 fonts so that ps2pdf generates good > (scalable) pdf files. I have been successful with dvips 5.78 on my Suns, > but am hitting a brick wall with dvips 5.86 on linux. > > 1) In theory I can use dvips -Ppdf and the type1 fonts should be used, but > my pdf output looks lousy. > > 2) I download the cm bluesky font stuff from CTAN and make a font map > file, tell dvips to use it and now all I get in my pdf file is courier > fonts. They look good, but they are courier only! > > 3) I download the bakoma font stuff from CTAN, make a font map file, tell > divps to use it and I get an ERROR in encoding error. > > 4) I change my font map file to use << instead of < for the bakoma fonts, > and I no longer get the ERROR in encoding error, but the pdf output is > lousy. > > Can anyone tell me what is going on? > > thanks > > Nik > Hello, You need Ghostscript 6.xx or later. There is a Ghostscript 6.50 rpm from RedHat in one of their RawHide series. Sadly Ghostscript 5.50 is what one gets from RedHat 7.1 probably to assure a bigger set of printer drivers. You don't need to patch teTeX as described. If you want to change teTeX (due to some other reason) probably a better starting point is the teTeX beta (not available as rpm as far as I know). Getting a Ghostscript that solves your problem and supports your printer drivers may be a problem depending on your particular circunstances. There are Ghostscript rpms (for RedHat 7.x) from the Ghostscript developers that will install under /usr/local and zap whatever /usr/bin/gs is around. But then you discover that they were compiled for a small set of printer drivers... There is a known problem with Ghostscript 7.00 with respect to tetex (more precisely gsftopk). Getting the distribution from CVS at sourceforge or from Paul Vojta's web page and compiling it solves that. Ghostscript has a GNU license up to 6.5* and an Aladdin license for 7.* if that is an issue with you. Coexistence on the same host of two versions of ghostscript is probably doable but currently seems to be beyond my time and patience. Compiling GS 7.* with support for the HP ink jet drivers also... Good luck! -- João Palhoto Matos http://www.math.ist.utl.pt/~jmatos Departamento de Matemática Instituto Superior Técnico Lisboa mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
