Re: [tex-live] Proposal for collection reorganization
On 6/4/06, Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> > bin-pdftools -- Support tools for PDF files.
> > bin-thumbpdf -- Thumbnails for pdfTeX and dvips/ps2pdf.
> > eso-pic -- Add picture commands (or backgrounds) to every page.
> >
> > pdftools and thumbpdf could probably moved to collection-context (especially
> > since they are links to texexec!!!).
when did thumbpdf stop being a standalone script (called by a shell
wrapper).
It still is, the confusion is in the name of the generic shell wrapper
that does "perl `kpsewhich -format=texmfscripts $0` ...", which got
called "texexec" instead of "generic_wrapper_to_run_perl_scripts".
On debian with texlive:
$ file $(which thumbpdf)
/usr/bin/thumbpdf: symbolic link to `texexec'
making it a texexec call means latex users have to have to load
context bundle, regardless.
doesn't bother me (since i've got decent sized discs) but makes a bit
of a mockery of carefully separating the context and latex bundles.
For many (pdfe)TeX users, context has become is an essential utility due to the
mpost support macros and robust scripts for pstopdf, pdftrimwhite, etc .
btw -- the current context provides a "texmfstart" script, so
"perl `kpsewhich -format=texmfscripts texexec.pl` ..." has become
"ruby `kpsewhich -format=texmfscripts texmfstart.rb` texexec.rb ...".
So the "generic_wrapper_to_run_scripts" formerly known as texexec
needs to have a ruby counterpart, or we a new script that "knows"
which names get passed to perl and which ruby.
Hope your disk has space for ruby too!
--
George N. White III <aa056@chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
Reply to: