Re: teTeX 2.99 packages
Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr> wrote:
> Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
>
>> Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr> schrieb:
>>
>>> PPPS: I wasn't able to test with the very latest tetex-beta packages since
>>> tetex-bin is still in NEW. I tested with these versions:
>>
>> I have uploaded tetex-bin_2.99.12.20050203-beta to
>
> Thanks, works fine. I'm puzzled by the new /etc/texmf.cnf, however:
>
> % TEXMFDIST is not used in Debian, everything is in /usr/share/texmfMAIN
> TEXMFDIST = /usr/share/texmfMAIN
>
> This is probably harmless, but as I have no /usr/share/texmfMAIN
> directory, it is confusing... Perhaps the line should be commented, or
> the variable set to $TEXMFMAIN?
Uups, it seems I noticed this after the upload. It's already fixed
here. This should be just $TEXMFMAIN, but some sed magic interferes
here.
>> Furthermore, I also worked on the lmodern issue - not only because I
>> wanted lmodern, but because I wanted to be able to use sarge's font
>> packages together with teTeX-3.0. To my experience, the 2.99.12 packages
>> and the upcoming 3.0 packages work with current lmodern out-of-the-box:
>> There are no file conflicts, and, more importantly for other font
>> packages, the necessary files can be found from their locations in the
>> old TDS layout.
>
> I see, you patched updmap. Besides allowing the use of font packages
> written for teTeX 2, this will make upgrades smoother for local texmf
> trees. Thanks.
I intended to drop the patch once sarge is released and tetex-3.0 gets
into unstable, and use it only for backports to sarge. But you're right,
I was only thinking of Debian packages (which would switch faster if
they get bug reports), not about local trees.
Hm. I'll have to check whether the move can be automated. Then we could
provide a script and ask the user whether he wants his TEXMFLOCAL to be
converted.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: