Re: texlive

        On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:51 AM Patrick Dupre <pdu...@gmx.com> wrote: Hello, texlive 2021 is considered as too old now by latex developers texlive 2022 will come with fc38 if I understand. Is there any option to be able to run texlive 2022 with fc36? Is pdflatex

Re: texlive

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:51 AM Patrick Dupre wrote: > Hello, > > texlive 2021 is considered as too old now by latex developers > texlive 2022 will come with fc38 if I understand. > Is there any option to be able to run texlive 2022 with fc36? > Is pdflatex or one of the mo

Re: texlive

Hello, texlive 2021 is considered as too old now by latex developers texlive 2022 will come with fc38 if I understand. Is there any option to be able to run texlive 2022 with fc36? Thank === Patrick DUPRÉ

Re: texlive

On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 22:22 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > Hello, > > This is the feedback that I got from lyx maintainer about > the issue psline (previous message) You should post this as a reply to your previous message and keep threading intact so people don't have to search for it. poc

texlive

Hello, This is the feedback that I got from lyx maintainer about the issue psline (previous message) Your texlive is too old for lualatex and pstricks with directly created pdf without Ghostscript Herbert === Patrick

texlive-newtx math fonts cannot be used

Dear members of the list, I filed a bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832320) about some problems using a specific package of tex, namely newtxmath.sty. I use it only in few documents, and I do not know if it is the case for most Fedora-LaTeX users. The bug is confirmed by other

Re: [F29] Command dvipdfmx (texlive) does not work

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:00 PM Jon Ingason wrote: > > You need to install texlive-xetex-7:20180414-28.fc29.x86_64 which > provide /usr/bin/xdvipdfmx. > > -- > Regards > > Jon Ingason > Hi Jon, Thank you very much. It works. I'll add your suggestion in the repor

Re: [F29] Command dvipdfmx (texlive) does not work

Den 2018-12-11 kl. 18:43, skrev Marco Guazzone: > Hi, > > On my Fedora 29, the command dvipdfmx does not work: > > $ rpm -q texlive-dvipdfmx > texlive-dvipdfmx-20180414-28.fc29.x86_64 > $ dvipdfmx > bash: dvipdfmx: command not found > > Indeed, the exec

[F29] Command dvipdfmx (texlive) does not work

Hi, On my Fedora 29, the command dvipdfmx does not work: $ rpm -q texlive-dvipdfmx texlive-dvipdfmx-20180414-28.fc29.x86_64 $ dvipdfmx bash: dvipdfmx: command not found Indeed, the executable file '/usr/bin/dvipdfmx' is a broken link that points to a nonexistent file: $ ls -al /usr/bin

Re: fonts in texlive

Hi Patrick: Sometimees you need to make a texhash on the terminal for update your texlive distribution. I suspect you are using pdflatex and maybe that's why you have to install that font in packages. If the compiler you use is xelatex or lualatex you can use your truetype and opentype fonts

Re: fonts in texlive

Thank Carlos, It is fixed, However, dnf whatprovides bbold10.pfb Last metadata expiration check: 3:02:28 ago on Wed 17 Jan 2018 12:36:59 PM CET. Error: No Matches found dnf repoquery -l texlive-bbold.noarch | grep bbold10.pfb Last metadata expiration check: 3:02:51 ago on Wed 17 Jan 2018 12:36

Re: fonts in texlive

On 17 January 2018 at 12:29, Patrick Dupre <pdu...@gmx.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I installed: > texlive-bbold > > but the font are not installed: > Salut Patrick, The file you need is included in a different package [casep@X1Carbon ~]$ sudo dnf repoquery -l texlive-bbol

Re: fonts in texlive

On 01/17/18 20:29, Patrick Dupre wrote: > !pdfTeX error: pdflatex (file bbold10.pfb): cannot open Type 1 font file for > re > ading I know nothing about textlive but doing a "dnf whatprovides" I see texlive-bbold-type1-6:svn33143.0-36.fc27.5.noarch : An Adobe Typ

fonts in texlive

Hello, I installed: texlive-bbold but the font are not installed: This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.17 (TeX Live 2016) (preloaded format=pdflatex) restricted \write18 enabled. entering extended mode (./newfile1.tex LaTeX2e <2016/03/31> Babel <3.9r> and hyphenation pa

Re: reporting on BZ for texlive-IEEEtran

t bugzilla categories > all correspond to whatever source RPM originated the file in question. > > Since the Source RPM is texlive, then the plain old texlive name is the > one to use to report things. > > P.S. The only way to discover this is to report things in the wrong > cat

Re: reporting on BZ for texlive-IEEEtran

-q -i -f /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/IEEEtran Name: texlive-base Epoch : 4 Version : 2014 Release : 19.20140525_r34255.fc23 Architecture: noarch Install Date: Mon 22 Feb 2016 07:21:37 AM EST Group : Applications/Publishing Size: 7737537 L

reporting on BZ for texlive-IEEEtran

Hi, I wanted to report on Bugzilla that the IEEEtran style file was quite outdated and needed an update. However, it appears that on BZ there is no entry to list it under. The only choices I get there are: texlive-extension, texlive-texmf and texlive-texmf-errata and texlive itself

Re: texlive

Let's also remind the average Word user that setting up a working copy of LaTeX and learning even the basics of the syntax - and what you shouldn't do - takes a few extra hours when compared to learning a What You See Is What You Get like Word. In defense of Word and Writer (LibreOffice), most

Re: texlive

Just an addition to George's impressive answer: I only tried Word equations on 2013 (the version) and it was painfully bad, sometimes blocking the program for as much as two or three seconds when I was entering a complex fraction. However, maybe it was just a bad installation or something that

Re: texlive

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 11:25 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > Let's also remind the average Word user that setting up a working > copy > of LaTeX and learning even the basics of the syntax - and what you > shouldn't do - takes a few extra hours when compared to learning a > What You See Is What

Re: texlive

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:52 +1030, Tim wrote: > > Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because > > its > > ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives? > > > > I know

Re: texlive

Am 25.01.2016 um 16:50 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach: On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote: when being forced by my customers to use Word. Would you mind sharing how common this was? The publishing house I had been working for usually does their

Re: texlive

till the early Eighties. For the record, I never called texlive a word-processor; what I did say was that it contained one. (That much was obvious just from skimming the list of routines that got updated by dnf.) When dnf listed all the things it would delete, I typed the one

Re: texlive

Am 25.01.2016 um 16:21 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach: Just an addition to George's impressive answer: I only tried Word equations on 2013 (the version) and it was painfully bad, sometimes blocking the program for as much as two or three seconds when I was entering a complex fraction. However, maybe

Re: texlive

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote: when being forced by my customers to use Word. Would you mind sharing how common this was? It's very common in the Pathology community. I wrote two book chapters

Re: texlive

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote: > when being forced by my > customers to use Word. Would you mind sharing how common this was? -- Bernardo Sulzbach -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options:

Re: texlive

rubber cement; I never touched a computer > till the early Eighties. My PhD thesis (1978) was written on a PDP-11/45 with 6th Edition Unix, using "em", formatted in Nroff and printed on a Diablo :-) Luckily for me, there were no formulae in it. >     For the record, I never

Re: texlive

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > At the risk of being pedantic, it doesn't contain a word processor. It > contains a document typesetting system. It has no user interface other > than your favourite text editor (although various GUI-like things

Re: texlive

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their > > papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX. > > Not only this kind of message annoys

Re: texlive

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:52 +1030, Tim wrote: > Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because > its > ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives? > > I know that in general use, I find Word horrendous.  But I've never > tried formulae in it, etc., nor

Re: texlive

Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach sent: > I think it really boils down to what is your conception of "text > processor". That keeps getting redefined, over the years. Early ones were little more than an electric typewriter on screen, sometimes called an article editor.

Re: texlive

On 01/24/2016 12:37 PM, Beartooth wrote: Is there some reason I don't see to keep this enormous app, or would I be better off just telling dnf to remove it?? Try removing it with --assumeno to see what else would go away with it. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: texlive

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:23:47 -0200 Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX > > or its cousin LaTeX. > > Not only

Re: texlive

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > > FWIW, I think that if you read Patrick's complete statement, he is not > terribly inaccurate: he cites Math, Physics, CS -- to that I would add > statistics and computational methods/OR. If you look at

Re: texlive

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 21:45 +, Beartooth wrote: > But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a > word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if > any) might call it. It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell then clearly

Re: texlive

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their > > papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX. > > Not only this kind of message annoys

Re: texlive

Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Patrick O'Callaghan sent: > It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell > then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing, > especially in Maths, Physics or CS, since probably 99% of researchers > in those

Re: texlive

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:52:05 +1030 Tim wrote: > Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Patrick O'Callaghan sent: > > It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell > > then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing, >

Re: texlive

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX > or its cousin LaTeX. Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined individuals, it is wrong by, let me say it, an

Re: texlive

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of > using it? As I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive at all. But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to c

Re: texlive

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:45:36 + Beartooth <bearto...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > > > Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of > > using it? > > As I said originally, af

Re: texlive

Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of using it? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct:

texlive

I'm doing dnf upgrade on F23. Like many other times, it's updating some humongous number of items involving texlive; It must be a huge program. Afaik, I have never used texlive at all. Unless some other app calls it, I seem to be wasting a lot of space -- and maybe exposing my

Re: texlive

I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive at all. But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if any) might call it. Just sudo dnf erase texlive\-* and see what it offers to take out with it. If you ca

Re: texlive

Hello: My suggestion is that no matter which distro are using you, install TeXLive 2013 ( http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/133235/installing-tex-live-2013-on-linux) full or TeXLive 2014 (coming soon) from an iso image from the CTAN ( http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/texlive/Images

Re: texlive

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:04:22 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: ! Package babel Error: Unknown option `french'. Either you misspelled it (babel)                or the language definition file french.ldf was not found . Is it a lyx of a fedora issue? That question isn't interesting. More

texlive

Hello, It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel the following file: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/french.ldf has been replaced by: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/francais.ldf which becomes incompatible with lyx which only manages

Re: texlive

Hello, It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel the following file: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/french.ldf has been replaced by: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/francais.ldf which becomes incompatible with lyx which only

Re: texlive

On 01/26/14 07:44, Patrick Dupre wrote: Hello, It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel the following file: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/french.ldf has been replaced by: /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/francais.ldf which

Re: texlive

- Original Message - From: Ed Greshko Sent: 01/26/14 12:49 AM To: Community support for Fedora users Subject: Re: texlive On 01/26/14 07:44, Patrick Dupre wrote: Hello, It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel the following file: /usr/share

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

Hi, I installed texlive from the install.sh script. It worked after installing some perl modules which are easily to discover. The texlive package manager worked better for me than the fedora repositories. Especially if you are going to use xelatex which I recommend. Thomas 2013/4/12 Rolf

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +1200, Rolf Turner wrote: ! Package hypdestopt Error: This package requires pdfTeX in PDF mode. See the hypdestopt package documentation for explanation. Type H return for immediate help. ... l.55 }\@ehc But powerdot is incompatible with pdfTeX.

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

On 04/12/13 08:09, Rolf Turner wrote: On 04/12/2013 01:12 AM, Mike Williams wrote: SNIP The texlive that comes with fedora 17 is texlive 2007, the version from the tug link is texlive 2013. On my system I used yum to remove texlive, then downloaded the .iso from tug, mounted the iso

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

Hi Ed, On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:46:52PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: First, I am not a Latex user. But decided to try your demo file on an F17 system where I installed using yum... I think it is OK? [egreshko@f17x ~]$ latex demo.tex [...] I think the OP expected it to work with

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

) restricted \write18 enabled. I then did which latex and got, as expected (since I'd made the appropriate modification to my PATH) /usr/local/texlive /2012/bin/x86_64-linux/latex. So I looked at /usr/local/texlive /2012/bin/x86_64-linux/latex and this turns out to be a symbolic link to /usr/local/texlive

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

*. This seems to be simply what happens under texlive2012. [...] So I need somehow to get an installation of texlive where latex really means ***latex*** and not pdftex. How the hell do I arrange that? This is intentional. All modern TeX distributions symlink latex, pdflatex, etc to pdftex. pdftex

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17 --- Solved?

Further to my previous message: Maybe I *am* a moron and not just an idiot studying hard to be one. I realized that I should have been doing ps2pdf demo.ps not ps2pdf demo and *that* was the source of the error that I was getting. So it all seems to be working now. I guess the

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

texlive2012. [...] So I need somehow to get an installation of texlive where latex really means ***latex*** and not pdftex. How the hell do I arrange that? This is intentional. All modern TeX distributions symlink latex, pdflatex, etc to pdftex. pdftex figures out what it should run as by looking

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

Hi Rolf, On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:43:50PM +1200, Rolf Turner wrote: I don't, didn't, never have, and never will use hypdestopt!!! Do you see any reference to hypdestopt in the demo code? I figured that it had to come from somewhere in the bowels of powerdot. God knows

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 21:37 +1200, Rolf Turner wrote: So I need somehow to get an installation of texlive where latex really means ***latex*** and not pdftex. How the hell do I arrange that? I'm a bit late to this party, but Jindrich Novy's Fedora TeXLive repo for F17 works well

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

packages (beamer, pgf, hyperref) and others are currently unavailable for kerTeX, but can be added later via a package script. See Packages section in {1}. {1} http://www.kergis.com/en/kertex.html Also, you can have texlive from (main sources), from fedora repositories(through yum) and you may

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17 --- Solved?

On 04/12/2013 03:32 AM, Rolf Turner wrote: I realized that I should have been doing ps2pdf demo.ps not ps2pdf demo and *that* was the source of the error that I was getting. Brain fart. Don't worry about it. Tish happens. If you want to know about one that had me going round

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17 --- Solved?

On 04/13/2013 05:16 AM, Joe Zeff wrote: On 04/12/2013 03:32 AM, Rolf Turner wrote: I realized that I should have been doing ps2pdf demo.ps not ps2pdf demo and *that* was the source of the error that I was getting. Brain fart. Don't worry about it. Tish happens. If you want to

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17 --- Solved?

Sorry, I did not mean to send my previous message to the list, since Joe Zeff had asked to email him off-list. I just clicked on Reply thinking my message would just go to the sender. (I didn't click on Reply List or Reply All.) And then I didn't notice that the To field was the list until

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

On 04/12/2013 11:35 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote: Hi Rolf, On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:43:50PM +1200, Rolf Turner wrote: I don't, didn't, never have, and never will use hypdestopt!!! Do you see any reference to hypdestopt in the demo code? I figured that it had to come from somewhere in

Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

-installing texlive. I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire.html unpacked, changed directories appropriately and executed ./install.tl as per instructions. I got an error message: Can't locate Digest/MD5.pm in @INC (@INC contains: ./tlpkg /usr

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

be able to get rid of the flakiness by re-installing texlive. I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire.html unpacked, changed directories appropriately and executed ./install.tl How had you installed texlive previously on F17? Did you

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

I'm not completely sure if I installed texlive using yum, or if texlive came with the initial install of Fedora 17. My vague recollection is that there was a latex facility that came with Fedora 17 but it was incomplete, and that I did indeed do yum install texlive to fix things up. Now when

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

into here.) I thought that perhaps I might be able to get rid of the flakiness by re-installing texlive. I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire.html The texlive that comes with fedora 17 is texlive 2007, the version from the tug link

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

that perhaps I might be able to get rid of the flakiness by re-installing texlive. I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire.html unpacked, changed directories appropriately and executed ./install.tl as per instructions. I got an error

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

might be able to get rid of the flakiness by re-installing texlive. I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from Don't install stuff manually when things have already been packages. Fedora 18 features a complete TeXLive 2012 distribution; you can also get it on Fedora 17 by # yum remove

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:46:15 +0300, Susi Lehtola jussileht...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Don't install stuff manually when things have already been packages. Fedora 18 features a complete TeXLive 2012 distribution; you can also get it on Fedora 17 by Except that I think Fedora installs

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:31:17PM +1200, Rolf Turner wrote: I'm not completely sure if I installed texlive using yum, or if texlive came with the initial install of Fedora 17. My vague recollection is that there was a latex facility that came with Fedora 17 but it was incomplete

Re: Installing texlive under Fedora 17.

On 04/12/2013 01:12 AM, Mike Williams wrote: SNIP The texlive that comes with fedora 17 is texlive 2007, the version from the tug link is texlive 2013. On my system I used yum to remove texlive, then downloaded the .iso from tug, mounted the iso, installed from that and it works fine. OK

Re: texlive

Tethys wrote: TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to critical bug reports. I use LaTeX and Metafont under Fedora-17 and Fedora-18 quite a lot, and have had no problems. ConTeXt is literally unusable

Re: texlive

. ConTeXt is a macro package for TeX typesetting engines, so I would say LaTeX and ConTeXt are alternate solutions based on the same core and are both part of the collection of software often known as TeX and friends. It is also part of the TeXLive distribution. -- Suvayu Open source is the future

Re: texlive

it. I don't use ConTeXt (and I'm on F18 now), so I can't say anything about that. But on F17 I used TeX Live from CTAN, not the Fedora rpms, and everything I use worked fine. (I haven't had any problems with the one from the rpms on F18 yet either, but ...) I will second the TeXLive

texlive

Hello, I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains no files) while: rpm -q texlive texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 Whould I finish the install manually? Thank

Re: texlive

Am 07.03.2013 12:32, schrieb Patrick Dupre: Hello, I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains no files) while: rpm -q texlive texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 Whould I finish

Re: texlive

I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains no files) while: rpm -q texlive texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 Whould I finish the install manually? [root@rh:~]$ yum search texlive fonts

Re: texlive

Am 07.03.2013 12:59, schrieb Patrick Dupre: I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains no files) while: rpm -q texlive texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 Whould I finish the install

Re: texlive

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 12:59 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains no files) while: rpm -q texlive texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 Whould I

Re: texlive

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre patrick.du...@univ-littoral.fr wrote: I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains no files) while: rpm -q texlive texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18

Re: texlive

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:34:48 + Tethys tet...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre patrick.du...@univ-littoral.fr wrote: I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 05:34 AM, Tethys wrote: TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to critical bug reports. ConTeXt is literally unusable out of the box (as in, it doesn't run at all), which make typesetting my

Re: texlive

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote: There are other FOSS options for this, you know. If you don't mind migrating from a markup language to a GUI, you might consider Scribus. I've had good luck with it on small projects, and I know that there are professionals out

Re: texlive

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 10:40 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: On 03/07/2013 05:34 AM, Tethys wrote: TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to critical bug reports. ConTeXt is literally unusable out of the box (as

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 10:47 AM, Tethys wrote: I've been doing this a long time now, and I'm well aware of the alternatives. OK, just asking. I've run across any number of people across the years who learn one way of doing something and keep doing it that way long after there's a better way simply

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 10:56 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: That might work for some projects, but generally speaking people using TeX/LaTeX are concerned about finer control of typesetting, especially when it comes to mathematical material. TeX/LaTeX is the gold standard for this. To paraphrase Brian

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote: Hello, I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains no files) while: rpm -q texlive texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 Whould I finish the install

Re: texlive

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote: You may find this interesting, then. PDF files created by Scribus are considerably larger than those created by Adobe. This is because Adobe sets the position for a line, then inserts a string of characters for that line. Scribus

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 11:59 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote: OK, THis is correct, but \documentclass[a4paper]{article} \usepackage{fourier} \begin{document} Hello world! L'{\'E}l{\'e}phant va {\`a} la mare. \[\frac14=0{,}25\] \end{document} fails: (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/base

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 11:32 AM, Tethys wrote: If you create a PDF from a given input source, then it goes without saying that it will only be able to position the characters in the same position as they are in the input. If the input supports per-character positioning (as most Adobe products do, FWIW),

Re: texlive

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:07 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: On 03/07/2013 10:56 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: That might work for some projects, but generally speaking people using TeX/LaTeX are concerned about finer control of typesetting, especially when it comes to mathematical material.

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 01:27 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: Not really sure why you're bringing in Adobe. TeX/LaTeX have nothing to do with PDF (sure, they can optionally generate PDF output, but that's not the point). As it happens, the difference has been discussed on the scribus mailing list, so

Re: texlive

Well I have been using TeXlive for a long time, and I do it in different machines and with different OS. But my basic system is Ubuntu LTS, I hate to change my OS every six months and I prefer something more stables. With Fedora in the last versions I have few troubles and I use them

Re: texlive

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:47:52 +, Tethys wrote: I tried various other options and ended up with ConTeXt, which I'm generally pretty happy with. Except that it doesn't work on F17. At all. And yes, I do mind migrating. For new projects, it's not so bad. But for already published books, if I

texlive in F18: \usepackage{pslatex} - kpathsea: Running mktexmf ptmr7t - I can't find file `ptmr7t'

ptmr7t Please type another input file name ! Emergency stop. * ...:=ljfour; mag:=1; nonstopmode; input ptmr7t I have submitted a bug report: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901394 Does anyone know a work around? It seems that texlive packages have changed from F17 to F18. Frédéric

Re: texlive in F18: \usepackage{pslatex} - kpathsea: Running mktexmf ptmr7t - I can't find file `ptmr7t'

that texlive packages have changed from F17 to F18. Frédéric Do you have texlive-texmf-fonts installed? -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far

Re: texlive in F18: \usepackage{pslatex} - kpathsea: Running mktexmf ptmr7t - I can't find file `ptmr7t'

On 01/19/2013 04:43 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: Do you have texlive-texmf-fonts installed? FWIW, I got around the error you reported by doing the following over-kill. yum install texlive*font* -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot

  1   2   >