[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: another spin of TeX Live 2009 packages



Jonathan Underwood wrote:

> 2009/8/31 Patrice Dumas <pertusus free fr>:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I haven't followed closely the new packaging of texlive, so you should
>> take my comments with caution...
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
>>>
>>> The new packages obsolete the ancient tetex stuff:
>>> tetex-tex4ht
>>
>> I think that the stand-alone tex4ht could be better than the texlive one.
>> It was updated many time a year in the past (but it may change).
>>
>>> tetex-elvevier
>>
>> In the past, the version in CTAN of this package used to lag a lot. I'd
>> still advise taking the files from the web, especially since there is
>> also the old style in the stand-alone package.
>>
>>> and these utilities:
>>> dvipdfm
>>> dvipdfmx
>>> dvipng
>>> xdvi
>>> xdvipdfmx
>>
>> Haven't some of those an upstream different from texlive?
> 
> They do - however I lean towards using ones that come from texlive
> though, so we benefit from the integration work the TeXLive developers
> do. Once we start down the road of packaging everything with another
> upstream separately we get closer to basically developing out own TeX
> distribution, and we don't have the manpower to do that. A purest
> approach wouldn't consume the class files and packages from TeXLive
> either, but would rather take the .dtx files etc from ctan. Clearly
> this would be crazy. I think it's fair to regard TeXLive as upstream -
> in most cases the other upstreams are more like development sandboxes.
> 
> Jonathan (who presently maintains or comaintains most of those
> packages at the mo).
> 

IIRC xdvipdfmx is from texlive (but has not been updated for some time)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]