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
Yes, they have a mapping for their legacy Hebrew fonts, but I was hoping
to find a mapping for the ascii input used by hebtex, or arabtex.
I am not a scholar of Hebrew, so I would not be the right person to
write such a map file.
Nathan
On 11/10/18 5:48, Andy Lin wrote:
An easy way is
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 02:23:29PM -0500, Neal Delmonico wrote:
One thing still
bothers me about that whole affair. I am working on several books
involving Sanskrit and English and requiring hyphenation in both.
None of the other books had
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 05:49:28AM +0800, Daniel Greenhoe wrote:
Does anyone know of any data base
with a traditional to simplified character mapping such that I could
maybe write the utility myself?
Unicode has that in the Unihan database: look up
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,
Hi Arthur,
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Arthur Reutenauer
arthur.reutena...@normalesup.org wrote:
Unicode has that in the Unihan database:
look up Unihan_Variants.txt in Unihan.zip
(latest version http://www.unicode.org/Public/6.1.0/ucd/Unihan-6.1.0d1.zip )
It looks like I can extract
26 matches
Mail list logo
