On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:57:51AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:00:22 +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of
duplication of effort).
I have to add that I think that the chosen strategy (provide a full port and a
On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 20:33:15 +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 01:57:51AM +0200, Polytropon wrote:
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:00:22 +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of
duplication of effort).
I have to add
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 02:22:12PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote:
I use for my day to day work teTeX, but I run more and more into
several limitations due to the fact, teTeX isn't any more (and
regretably) maintained/developed by Th. Esser (that is what I know).
Upstream teTeX has indeed been
On 09/15/2013 02:00 PM, Roland Smith wrote:
Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of
duplication of effort). I installed TeXLive using its own installer long
before it was present in the ports tree. Since TeXLive is very complete and
self-contained, I don't have
On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 21:00:22 +0200, Roland Smith wrote:
Personally I don't think TeX is a good fit for the ports tree (because of
duplication of effort).
In conclusion, that could be said about many other software
that brings its own package management. Of course, LaTeX is
a big and complex
I use for my day to day work teTeX, but I run more and more into
several limitations due to the fact, teTeX isn't any more (and
regretably) maintained/developed by Th. Esser (that is what I know).
Well, TeXlive is now in the ports tree, but I had recently on a server,
on which I tried to
