Chris Travers wrote:
If TexLive had been around in 2002 and was statically linking to zlib,
it would have been affected too. TeX does not link against zlib but
LaTeX and XeTeX do.
Similarly, arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities have been found in
2005 in libjpeg (also linked to by LaTeX
Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
Chris, these statements have to be wrong, at least in part :
if TeX does not link against Zlib, then neither does LaTeX --
they are one and the same engine. -- ditto -- LibJpeg.
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa :
C:\Program
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Chris Travers wrote:
If TexLive had been around in 2002 and was statically linking to zlib,
it would have been affected too. TeX does not link against zlib but
LaTeX and XeTeX do.
Similarly,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 09:30:29PM +0100, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
wrote:
And to which package management suite would you suggest they delegate
when offering TeX Live for Windows ?
Perhaps there's not even need to change the package management texlive has.
I do not know much about the
2011/10/21 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:54 schrieb Chris Travers:
One of the other commentors talks about documents that don't render on
all versions of TexLive. If a client of mine is
On Oct 20, 2011, at 9:36 PM, Ross Moore wrote:
Hi Herb,
On 21/10/2011, at 6:47 AM, Herbert Schulz wrote:
If TexLive had been around in 2002 and was statically linking to zlib,
it would have been affected too. TeX does not link against zlib but
LaTeX and XeTeX do.
...
Howdy,
Am 21.10.2011 um 00:51 schrieb Chris Travers:
I'm not the one mixing things up. What I am saying is perhaps a bit
different. If you are tying the .sty upgrades to binary upgrades,
then an upgrade in a binary requires .sty upgrades, and these can
break document generation systems.
Neither
Am 21.10.2011 um 01:42 schrieb Chris Travers:
At the time a large portion of the industry was writing software
statically linked against zlib
I think it wasn't zlib, it was versions of zlib, presumingly dozens.
If TexLive had been around in 2002 and was statically linking to zlib,
it
Am 21.10.2011 um 09:40 schrieb Chris Travers:
Am I reading this wrong?
No, but you you're choosing the wrong candidates, those from the old and
smelling Linux packages.
--
Greetings
Pete
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a night, but set a man on fire and
he'll be warm for the
2011/10/21 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com:
If TexLive had been around in 2002 and was statically linking to zlib,
it would have been affected too.
It was and it was and it was. :-(
So it was till we dropped libtiff from pdfTeX and till we dropped xpdf
from XeTeX and LuaTeX (pdfTeX still
Chris, you are *not* alone in your need for stability in the sense of
everything that worked up to now still has to work with the new version.
I have the same requirement, and quite a lot of the professional
typesetters on this list do, too. So even if it does not look like that to
you---I know I
On 18 October 2011 15:39, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's a breakdown of OS support for TexLive versions for anyone
interested:
Debian Lenny: TexLive 2007
Debian Squeeze: TexLive 2009
Debian Sid: TexLive 2009
Ubuntu 10.04 LTS: TexLive 2009
Red Hat Enterprise 6:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:43:57 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This has all been very helpful. At least I have things narrowed down
a bit here:
# fmtutil-sys --byfmt xelatex
! LaTeX source files more than 5 years
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:16:12PM +0200, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 18.10.2011 um 16:39 schrieb Chris Travers:
Here's a breakdown of OS support for TexLive versions for anyone interested:
Debian Lenny: TexLive 2007
Debian Squeeze: TexLive 2009
Debian Sid: TexLive 2009
Ubuntu
2011/10/20 Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:16:12PM +0200, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 18.10.2011 um 16:39 schrieb Chris Travers:
Here's a breakdown of OS support for TexLive versions for anyone
interested:
Debian Lenny: TexLive 2007
Debian Squeeze: TexLive
Am 20.10.2011 um 12:32 schrieb Petr Tomasek:
This is the best way to hell. Native packages should be used and not some
stupid external blob!
Can it be that you see stupidity because you can't see tlmgr and that the blob
is similar to any Linux distribution?
What keeps you from installing
2011/10/20 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com:
2011/10/20 Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 03:14:56PM +0200, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:43:57 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This has all been very helpful. At least I have things narrowed down
a
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 01:45:29PM +0200, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:19:48 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
And obviously this puts a lot us in bad positions. If RHEL 6
(released about a year ago) is sticking to TeXLive 2007, we all have
problems. The question is what the
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:20:15PM +0200, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:59:16 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This matches my needs very well. If my clients are running accounting
systems, the last thing I want is an upgrade of TexLive to break their
ability to generate
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 12:53 schrieb Chris Travers:
However, statically linking things strikes me as even worse from a
stability/security perspective (which is what is critical with server
software). It means that if there
2011/10/20 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com:
2011/10/20 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com:
It would be a good way if the native packages were up-to-date and if
they allowed me to install not only the current version but even older
versions. As a matter of fact, I first verify that
2011/10/20 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com:
The general point is that where one is doing server-side document
generation, there are sufficient reasons *not* to use external binary
blobs with it's own package manager that doesn't talk to or integrate
with anything else, which has a short
Quoting Zdenek Wagner (zdenek.wag...@gmail.com):
Of course, I never update anything in a middle of an important task.
That's why I still have CentOS 4 on one of my computers.
Well, in the middle of an important task is valid in a production system
every single minute. With this policy you will
Quoting Peter Dyballa (peter_dyba...@web.de):
What keeps you from installing TeX Live temporarily in /tmp and converting it
into a native package?
Me personally? I never did that before and would have to delve into how to
create a native package. I had a look at this some time ago and decided
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 03:10:19PM +0200, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 19.10.2011 um 12:19 schrieb Chris Travers:
If RHEL 6 (released about a year ago) is sticking to TeXLive 2007, we all
have problems.
The only problem is that of understanding. It's like the fifth wheel or the
tool to
2011/10/20 Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wag...@gmail.com:
I have server side applications based on TL. I use them from time to
time (none of them is currently active). The remote user cannot write
the document, it is always prepared by some SW tool (PHP, XSLT, ...).
And \write18 is disabled for such
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz wrote:
An opportunity to make chaos in the system?
No, thanks!
(P.S. The best would be to make some convertor which would convert the
TeX-Live packages
into native ones. Anything else is a problem...)
Just to offer a
Am Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:32:00 +0200 schrieb Susan Dittmar:
Helping users with the day-to-day administrational
work was the main reason why linux distributions have been invented.
Well this may have been the reason. And this is also the reason why
package managers like the one from miktex has
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
Am Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:32:00 +0200 schrieb Susan Dittmar:
Helping users with the day-to-day administrational
work was the main reason why linux distributions have been invented.
Well this may have been the reason. And
I do not think, it makes any difference.
-jobname=STRING set the job name to STRING
-progname=STRINGset program (and fmt) name to STRING
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk wrote:
Vafa Khalighi wrote:
There are two ways
Am 20.10.2011 um 13:24 schrieb Chris Travers:
So if libz needs a security update, I can get it without replacing
everything else
What do you gain with that? What is the difference between overwriting 5 MB or
50 MB of disk space?
--
Greetings
Pete
Bake pizza not war!
I do not think, it makes any difference.
-jobname=STRING set the job name to STRING
-progname=STRINGset program (and fmt) name to STRING
-jobname doesn't make any difference because it's set from the base
name of the first input (in that case, xelatex.ini), but -progname
2011/10/20 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:16 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
Am Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:32:00 +0200 schrieb Susan Dittmar:
Helping users with the day-to-day administrational
work was the main reason why linux distributions have been
Am 20.10.2011 um 13:32 schrieb Susan Dittmar:
Could you tell me how to do that for openSUSE from the top of your head?
No. I never created the specification for an RPM or DEB package in Linux (I
think I edited a few of them). Once it's created the package manager will build
the package and
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 13:24 schrieb Chris Travers:
So if libz needs a security update, I can get it without replacing
everything else
What do you gain with that? What is the difference between overwriting 5 MB
or 50
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Chris Travers:
Not disturbing other dependencies that production software depends on.
It can't. It does not carry shared libraries, DLLs, or such, that make
ld_config or such go mad. TeX Live is like the universe: it's self-contained.
And expanding...
--
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 7:24 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Chris Travers:
Not disturbing other dependencies that production software depends on.
It can't. It does not carry shared libraries, DLLs, or such, that make
ld_config or such go
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 04:24:47PM +0200, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Chris Travers:
Not disturbing other dependencies that production software depends on.
It can't. It does not carry shared libraries, DLLs, or such, that make
ld_config or such go mad. TeX
Am Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:54:52 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
It can't. It does not carry shared libraries, DLLs, or such, that
make ld_config or such go mad. TeX Live is like the universe:
it's self-contained. And expanding...
One of the other commentors talks about documents that don't render
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:54 schrieb Chris Travers:
One of the other commentors talks about documents that don't render on
all versions of TexLive. If a client of mine is depending on this
working, upgrading the various stuff from CTAN in order to get a
security fix in an underlying program is a
Am 20.10.2011 um 17:08 schrieb Petr Tomasek:
And that's exactly what's wrong and what needs to be changed...
Yes, I wouldn't stand the pain when the big rip will happen. This will feel
like the middle ages. Before this we will get very bloated, which should hurt
as well. I also prefer the
ConTeXt is not an engine but that is a format just like LaTeٓ is.
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:54 schrieb Chris Travers:
One of the other commentors talks about documents that don't render on
all versions of TexLive. If a
2011/10/20 Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 04:24:47PM +0200, Peter Dyballa wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:12 schrieb Chris Travers:
Not disturbing other dependencies that production software depends on.
It can't. It does not carry shared libraries, DLLs, or such,
...
offers a stable multiplatform solution. I would not believe that in
each distro they develop their own kernel, their own HW drivers, their
own GTK, their own TCP/IP stack, their own web browsers. I have never
heard of Debian/Mozilla, Fedora/Mozilla, Mandriva/Mozilla etc. So why
linux
Petr Tomasek wrote:
The reason is exactly that TeX-Live is (Linux-)distros unfriendly as it is not
easily to package it for a particular Linux distribution (and the main reason is
that it tries to duplicate things that should be done on system level - like the
package management).
And to
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 09:30:29PM +0100, Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd)
wrote:
Petr Tomasek wrote:
The reason is exactly that TeX-Live is (Linux-)distros unfriendly as it is
not
easily to package it for a particular Linux distribution (and the main
reason is
that it tries to
2011/10/20 Petr Tomasek toma...@etf.cuni.cz:
...
offers a stable multiplatform solution. I would not believe that in
each distro they develop their own kernel, their own HW drivers, their
own GTK, their own TCP/IP stack, their own web browsers. I have never
heard of Debian/Mozilla,
the universe: it's self-contained. And expanding...
And that's exactly what's wrong and what needs to be changed...
It will be hard to stop the universe expanding. We might try to get the UN
Security Council vote on that, though.
--
Petr Tomasek http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek
Please
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:54 schrieb Chris Travers:
One of the other commentors talks about documents that don't render on
all versions of TexLive. If a client of mine is depending on this
working, upgrading the various
On Oct 20, 2011, at 5:51 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 20.10.2011 um 16:54 schrieb Chris Travers:
One of the other commentors talks about documents that don't render on
all versions of TexLive. If a client of mine
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Schulz he...@wideopenwest.com wrote:
Howdy,
I'm not at all sure I understand what you're getting at but I'm interested in
understanding it. Can you give an example where something like what you
hypothesize in the last paragraph has happened with the
On Oct 20, 2011, at 6:42 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Herbert Schulz he...@wideopenwest.com
wrote:
Howdy,
I'm not at all sure I understand what you're getting at but I'm interested
in understanding it. Can you give an example where something like what you
Hi Herb,
On 21/10/2011, at 6:47 AM, Herbert Schulz wrote:
If TexLive had been around in 2002 and was statically linking to zlib,
it would have been affected too. TeX does not link against zlib but
LaTeX and XeTeX do.
...
Howdy,
Also, you say ``TeX does not link against zlib but LaTeX
Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:39:06 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
So the limit is five years (but only for the latex kernel).
The version date of my (current) latex.ltx ist
\edef\fmtversion{2011/06/27}
Or is XeTeX not intended to be used in these environments?
I would say that if your latex is
2011/10/19 Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de:
Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:39:06 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
So the limit is five years (but only for the latex kernel).
The version date of my (current) latex.ltx ist
\edef\fmtversion{2011/06/27}
Or is XeTeX not intended to be used in these
A few thoughts here as to where I think solutions lie.
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
The problem is that there seems to a mounting number on Linux users
which are reluctant to install software without using there package
manager. And there seems to
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:19:48 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
And obviously this puts a lot us in bad positions. If RHEL 6
(released about a year ago) is sticking to TeXLive 2007, we all have
problems. The question is what the community can reasonably do, and
what developers can be expected to
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
Well I'm a windows user so actually I'm not really affected. But
imho the linux distros should rethink their installation methods and
installation advices. It is absurd that 10 or more distros invest a
lot of main power
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:59:16 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This matches my needs very well. If my clients are running accounting
systems, the last thing I want is an upgrade of TexLive to break their
ability to generate invoices.
Normally you get more problems if you can't update ;-)
If
Am 19.10.2011 um 12:19 schrieb Chris Travers:
If RHEL 6 (released about a year ago) is sticking to TeXLive 2007, we all
have problems.
The only problem is that of understanding. It's like the fifth wheel or the
tool to change wheels that come with new car. They're not really usable,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:59:16 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This matches my needs very well. If my clients are running accounting
systems, the last thing I want is an upgrade of TexLive to break their
ability to generate
2011/10/19 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:45 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
Well I'm a windows user so actually I'm not really affected. But
imho the linux distros should rethink their installation methods and
installation advices. It is absurd
On 19/10/2011 14:53, Chris Travers wrote:
You get more problems with things suddenly and unexpectedly breaking
if you don't change them? On what theory?
At least if you don't include deliberate breakage of programs over a
certain age..
The 'expiry date' in LaTeX2e was there for good
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:10 AM, Peter Dyballa peter_dyba...@web.de wrote:
Am 19.10.2011 um 12:19 schrieb Chris Travers:
If RHEL 6 (released about a year ago) is sticking to TeXLive 2007, we all
have problems.
The only problem is that of understanding. It's like the fifth wheel or the
2011/10/19 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:20 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2011 05:59:16 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This matches my needs very well. If my clients are running accounting
systems, the last thing I want is an
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:13 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Joseph Wright
joseph.wri...@morningstar2.co.uk wrote:
The 'expiry date' in LaTeX2e was there for good reasons, and reflected a
desire to avoid buggy and out-of-date software
Chris Travers wrote:
xetex -ini -jobname=xelatex -progname=xelatex -etex xelatex.ini
I asked Vafa, there was no reply. I will now ask you, Chris :
What does this accomplish that
xetex -ini -etex xelatex.ini
does not ?
Philip Taylor
--
On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:09 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
...
I think stable in terms of you can safely use this to render your
documents and stable in terms of no unnecessary changed so we know
the software using this clearly and predictably works every time are
different senses of the word
Am Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:15:56 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
Just for the record, my workaround is:
cd to appropriate directory in /usr/var/texmf/
xetex -ini -jobname=xelatex -progname=xelatex -etex xelatex.ini
I can document it. It will do the job.
Hm. I don't understand how this can
Am 19.10.2011 um 16:09 schrieb Chris Travers:
However, it seems
to me that this community here doesn't really care about the kinds of
environments where this sort of document processing occurs.
Or this community knows how to get back to functioning state. Or uses test or
development areas
Am 19.10.2011 um 16:21 schrieb Herbert Schulz:
I don't think packages in updated TeX Live installations are changed
arbitrarily but rather in response to bug fixes that others, and possibly not
all users, have observed.
Indeed! Usually new (possibly bugful) features enter stage when a new
Peter,
I sort of resent this message, since
a) To uninstall TeX Live, use the Finder’s GO menu, go to
/usr/local/texlive/2011
and drag it to the trash, inputting your admin password when asked
b) As I have said countless times, MacTeX installs TeX Live. Pure
Hm. I don't understand how this can be a general usable work-around.
What actually is the appropriate directory here? Do you have a
newer/local version of latex.ltx in this directory?
Actually, if you look at a latex.ltx that has that check (the one from
stock TeX Live 2011 still has code
2011/10/19 Arthur Reutenauer arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org:
Hm. I don't understand how this can be a general usable work-around.
What actually is the appropriate directory here? Do you have a
newer/local version of latex.ltx in this directory?
Actually, if you look at a latex.ltx that has
Peter Dyballa,
I replied to Will Adam's comment as soon as I read it, apologizing to you.
Then I incorrectly the reply to Will rather than to the list.
I'm not going to reply to (or even read) mailing lists the rest of today.
Dick Koch
On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:35 AM, Richard Koch wrote:
Peter,
2011/10/18 Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com:
Hi all;
I need to generate the xelatex.fmt file. Apparently Fedora doesn't create
these files. It is not a new issue, I have had issues with the latex.fmt
files not created in the past.
Is there any way to manually create this file?
Am 18.10.2011 um 10:30 schrieb Chris Travers:
Is there any way to manually create this file?
TeX Live comes with a utility, fmtutil-sys. It allows to create FMT files for
the *system*. Private FMT files can be created with fmtutil. The former is kind
of a wrapper for the latter, so the only
There are two ways to create xelatex.fmt:
1) xetex -ini -jobname=xelatex -progname=xelatex -etex xelatex.ini
2) fmtutil --byfmt xelatex
--
Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.:
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
Vafa Khalighi wrote:
There are two ways to create xelatex.fmt:
1) xetex -ini -jobname=xelatex -progname=xelatex -etex xelatex.ini
What does this accomplish that xetex -ini -etex xelatex.ini does not ?
Philip Taylor
--
Subscriptions,
This has all been very helpful. At least I have things narrowed down
a bit here:
# fmtutil-sys --byfmt xelatex
Defining UNIX/DOS style filename parser.
catcodes, registers, compatibility for TeX 2, parameters,
!!
! You are
Quoting Chris Travers (chris.trav...@gmail.com):
! LaTeX source files more than 5 years old!.
Any idea of what I do about this?
I did not follow the thread closely. Are you the administrator of the
system? If so, I'd advise to de-install fedora's TeX-suite and install
texlive instead. That at
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Susan Dittmar susan.ditt...@gmx.de wrote:
Quoting Chris Travers (chris.trav...@gmail.com):
! LaTeX source files more than 5 years old!.
Any idea of what I do about this?
I did not follow the thread closely. Are you the administrator of the
system? If so, I'd
Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 05:43:57 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
This has all been very helpful. At least I have things narrowed down
a bit here:
# fmtutil-sys --byfmt xelatex
! LaTeX source files more than 5 years old!.
l.545 ...aTeX source files more than 5 years old!}
Any idea of
Hi.
I appear to have solved this by running xelatex -ini manually and then
copying the ..fmt file to the appropriate directory.
Thanks for everyone's help.
As a note, I am really restricted to supporting TexLive versions that
ship on stable long-term-support (and supported) distros
We can
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi.
I appear to have solved this by running xelatex -ini manually and then
copying the ..fmt file to the appropriate directory.
Thanks for everyone's help.
As a note, I am really restricted to supporting TexLive
Users also don't like to discover that the publishers' LaTeX format they
need won't work with the distro TeX, or that a document that formats correctly
on a co-author's Mac or Windows system won't format on their linux system.
The TeX ecosystem needs some reasonable limits on how long old
Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 06:43:59 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
Users also don't like to discover that the publishers' LaTeX
format they need won't work with the distro TeX, or that a
document that formats correctly on a co-author's Mac or Windows
system won't format on their linux system. The TeX
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011, George N. White III wrote:
Users also don't like to discover that the publishers' LaTeX format they
need won't work with the distro TeX, or that a document that formats
correctly
on a co-author's Mac or
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Chris Travers chris.trav...@gmail.com wrote:
Users also don't like to discover that the publishers' LaTeX format they
need won't work with the distro TeX, or that a document that formats
correctly
on a co-author's Mac or Windows system won't format on their
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Ulrike Fischer ne...@nililand.de wrote:
So the limit is five years (but only for the latex kernel).
The version date of my (current) latex.ltx ist
\edef\fmtversion{2011/06/27}
Or is XeTeX not intended to be used in these environments?
I would say that if
Am 18.10.2011 um 15:43 schrieb Chris Travers:
Given that server software that I work with usually has at least a
five year support cycle, what are those reasonable limits?
For TeX I'd think in decades. And support in the way TeX understands this term
is constant development and constant
Am 18.10.2011 um 16:39 schrieb Chris Travers:
Here's a breakdown of OS support for TexLive versions for anyone interested:
Debian Lenny: TexLive 2007
Debian Squeeze: TexLive 2009
Debian Sid: TexLive 2009
Ubuntu 10.04 LTS: TexLive 2009
Red Hat Enterprise 6: TexLive 2007
That means
92 matches
Mail list logo
