On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 9:34 PM, Alan Bowen wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2008, at 14;54,40 , Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> setuptex should already be executable and no TeX file (the best way to >> do the change would be to use "cp setuptex mysetuptex" and then modify >> the latter), but if you want to make sure ... do >> chmod a+x mysetuptex (or however your file is called) >> "ls -l" should show you the status of file (you should be able to see >> if the file is executable). > > Thanks. What confused me was that on my Mac the icon for the setuptex > changed after I edited it. > > Anyway, the revised setuptex works perfectly with the > ConTeXtMinimals.engine. Thank you again. > > But the question now is, which solution do you recommend? As a user, > my preference is for the one that leaves setuptex alone and focuses on > the engines that TeXShop uses, since it makes switching form MKII to > MKIV very easy to do. (I would add that, as things stand now, I also > have easy access to my Texlive 2007 setup.) However, I am much more > interested in keeping my setup in line with development path that you, > Hans, and the others set for the minimals, since, as I gather, they > are the future of ConTeXt.
If *.engine works for you, feel free to use that one. You don't need to bother about setuptex, really, unless you need to use TeX in bash. And TeXWorks might be the new future of TeXShop anyway ... Mojca ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : https://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
