Re: Too many conflicts? (tetex vs. texlive)
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 17:24 +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
>
> > This sounds quite reasonable. Only depending on tex-common, and calling
> > mktexlsr and updmap-sys only if tehy are present.
This sounds like an almost ideal solution, but
> I'm *almost* convinced. :-) But...
> I'd like to hear Frank's opinion about that.
me too.
> > If later on a tex system (whichever) is installed, there are calls of
> > update-updmap and updmap-sys anyway.
>
> Before tetex-bin is configured, texmf.cnf might be broken or incomplete.
IIRC tetex-* does not ship any files for texmf.cnf, ie, texmf.cnf should
be correct once tex-common is installed.
[...]
> packages to work with teTeX 2 (which is of limited interest since tetex
> 3 is coming soon in unstable; however, if tex-common were easy to
> backport to sarge...).
Frank provides a backport of tex-common together with his teTeX 3
backports (one happy user here).
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: