My (very limited!) experience is that using Raring-packaged texlive works, for a definition of "works" that just means it creates an English language PDF file that is viewable in evince and which "looks right" when so viewed for a minute or two.
Why does the Ubuntu Manual team currently recommend using unpackaged texlive instead? Are there tests for the build system that fail when using Raring-packaged texlive but succeed when using the unpackaged version? Is there a better test suite than "run make and see if the resulting PDF looks OK", which I should be using? Thanks, Jonathan _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
