Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Jean-Marc Lasgouttes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stephen P. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 10:53 PM Subject: Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs "Stephen" == Stephen P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I get it: you generate your messages with the automatic insult letter generator! Could you give me the URL please? The one I had does not work anymore... Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that you forgot it. Do as I say, not as I do. JMarc PS: Cool it, please.
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
> "Stephen" == Stephen P Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your >> mails as they arrived. >> Stephen> You are not when you act as a contributor to the mailing Stephen> list. However, Angus wrote: > Stephen, cool it please. Stephen> That statement is easily seen as one of moral censure. Stephen> Moderators who make such statements are obligated to read the Stephen> entire thread. Non-moderators can also express their opinions Stephen> and they are free to do so, no matter how ignorant they are Stephen> of the circumstances. Certainly reminds me of Peter Flynn. I get it: you generate your messages with the automatic insult letter generator! Could you give me the URL please? The one I had does not work anymore... JMarc PS: Cool it, please.
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Angus Leeming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 3:55 PM Subject: Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Stephen P. Harris wrote: Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator. My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as they arrived. You are not when you act as a contributor to the mailing list. However, Angus wrote: > Stephen, cool it please. That statement is easily seen as one of moral censure. Moderators who make such statements are obligated to read the entire thread. Non-moderators can also express their opinions and they are free to do so, no matter how ignorant they are of the circumstances. Certainly reminds me of Peter Flynn. You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts. Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking "kludge"{PF}. I don't see what your opinions about my moral character have to do with just about anything. This mailing list has never needed a moderator. I'd rather hope that that would continue. Stephen, cool it please. SH: That means you think I have said something inappropriate. I doubt if you are delusional enough to suppose that your opinions are facts. So your opinion is a value judgment relating to _your_ moral or ethical standards. A moderator is a person who has the authority to impose their ethical standards/opinions. You do not hold my respect as an ethical arbiter. I would have to respect your opinion, have some regard for your moral/ethical stature in order to think your opinion of what is inappropriate ("cool it) is something which I should pay heed to. You would need to be mature IMO, not someone who wears there feelings on their cuff. Perhaps I have been too subtle. Your moral character which is composed of your values and standards served as the basis for your censorial remark. Censorial remarks are rightfully made by moderators. Non-moderators can also make such remarks. Your statement is no different than mine in that it expressed displeasure... again IMO, the person who has the most information is the most qualified to make a determination about what is appropriate. I can't help it if you don't agree. Nor can I help it if you think my statements are inflammatory, rather than accurate, and that Flynn's statements are innocuous. You didn't respond to the issue, IMO. Truly, I feel somewhat surprised to be the subject of your vitriol. If England hadn't just regained the Ashes in a heroic and titanic struggle against the Aussies, your post might even make me feel a little upset. Does that sport have the situation where the referee blows the whistle on the second foul? I see that as 'enabling', defending the real culprit, and I'm strongly opposed to it because it makes my world a worse place. I think the solution to Peter's problem is found in the TeX Live 2000 userguide, not attributable to the evil RH tetex.rpm developers who Peter suggests are perhaps deliberately sabotaging the Tex Live releases. I've thought this over before posting. I think most likely you are not aware of why I don't like Peter Flynn's type of person, or even know that he is that type of person. I did think previously, that you were writing from a more informed point of view, which was based upon circumstantial evidence, although, since you obvioulsy don't support certain Australian Apartheid policies, I am not sure of my supposition regarding the depth of your cunning. Tally Ho, Stephen
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: > Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression > of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention > was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator. My apologies. I hadn't realised I was expected to read all your mails as they arrived. > You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to > be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to > bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a > right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more > justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts. > > Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a > perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As > a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking "kludge"{PF}. I don't see what your opinions about my moral character have to do with just about anything. This mailing list has never needed a moderator. I'd rather hope that that would continue. Truly, I feel somewhat surprised to be the subject of your vitriol. If England hadn't just regained the Ashes in a heroic and titanic struggle against the Aussies, your post might even make me feel a little upset. > Sincerely, > Stephen -- Angus
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
- Original Message - From: "Angus Leeming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:16 PM Subject: Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs Stephen P. Harris wrote: SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. Stephen, cool it please. -- Angus I already have. Peter Flynn wrote: "Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and the inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we have." SH: Let me politely describe that as an exaggeration rather than a lie. rpms were introduced as stable in the Fall of 1995, ten years ago. And the first Tex Live cd was released the next year in 1996. Peter Flynn abused this forum by introducing an off-topic rant about RH tetex rpms which was more than just one post. This provoked a defensive off-topic post from Jose Matos. Peter Flynn dismissed Paul A. Rubin's attempt at help with a derisive "This is madness." Because Peter doesn't fully grasp troubleshooting. Peter Flynn is an arrogant, ignorant blowhard. I think my expression of dissatisfaction was rather moderate. I think your moral intervention was a day late and a dollar short and not directed at the instigator. You are a fairly adept developer. Your ethical values leave a lot to be desired, IMO, as I mentioned before when I asked you not to bother me before. You are far from a moral authority. If you have a right to post your annoyance to what I wrote, I feel much more justified to complain about Peter Flynn's provocative posts. Maybe you don't care about my ethical values. That puts you in a perfect position to understand why I don't care about yours. As a wannabe moderator, I view you as a flunking "kludge"{PF}. Sincerely, Stephen
Re: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: > SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique > qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. Stephen, cool it please. -- Angus
Re: tetex RPMs
Stephen P. Harris wrote: I read this description from an authoritative source (tug.org) and your opinion is quite incoherent and inexperienced when compared to it. I'm afraid we differ on various points from time to time. The TeX Collection is self-described as having progressed to the point "that comprehensive began to become incomprehensible". That is a polite way of saying it had become a mess. Correct. That's why they rationalised it while changing from TeX Live to TeX Collection. It is no wonder that tetex would have received a lower priority. You also single out RedHat. Purely because it's the OS that we have most non-Windows users on here. Which of the many distros that using rpms or .deb have decided they have the time to incorporate the endless stream of upgrades in a system that in its entirety encompasses 6gigs? None, and I'm certainly not arguing that they should. Now in 2004, quite a few fundamental changes are made. And 2004 was released as a less perfected product than 2003. I don't mean that the fundamental changes were a mistake or that a lot of rough edges can be avoided in such a transition. But certainly you are not going to find a bunch of Linux distros jumping onto the bandwagon. They are not going to devote a large portion of their release to TeX, nor many man-hours to fixing TeX. Nor should they. The TC distro works as it stands: no "fixing" is needed. All RH (or whoever maintains the RH tetex RPMs on their behalf) needed to do was take whichever size installation they wanted to make into an RPM -- the smallest, if need be -- and do it. Instead, for some unfathomable reason, they appeared to have picked bits and pieces from different releases and cobbled them together. I will install the current version that came on the FC4 ISOs again and check it out, as I have no wish to do them an injustice if this problem has been recently fixed. The idea that the distros should do this, is undereducated and inexperienced. I have never suggested that the makers of Linux distros should do anything of this nature, only that Red Hat's distribution of tetex has been out of date for years (modulo whatever is available with RHEL4 and FC4 now -- as I just said). You speak of having users and dispensing TeX advice for 20 years. I'm afraid so. SH: You've certainly done a good job in establishing your unique qualifications for your sweeping pronouncements. If you're referring to my ignorance of the .lyx directory, my query was based only on the implicit assumption in the OP's message that I should already have one. ///Peter
Re: Lyx-code formatting
Paul A. Rubin wrote: I've got a document with some numbered chemical reaction equations formated as lyx-code. The problem is, when I generate a PDF the equations run over the edge of the page, they don't wrap around to the next line. Is it possible to make them wrap? Some ERT needed? Any other suggestion? The LyX code environment is like the preformatted tag in HTML -- text is reproduced verbatim, monospaced. If you want it verbatim and want it to fit, you can block it and use Layout->Character->Size to shrink it. Alternatively, if you want it to wrap, you could try switching to another environment (standard? quote? definition?) and use Layout->Character->Family to change the font family to typewriter. Paul Thanks Paul, I assumed this was the case, but just wanted to make sure I'd not missed anything. cheers, Dave -- David Mills Queen Mary, University of London Department of Chemistry Mile End Road E1 4NS, London, UK Phone: +44 (0)20 78824764 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: dia help
Myriam Abramson wrote: Hi! Somebody on this list might be familiar with the dia editor tool for drawing diagrams on many Linux distributions. The text facility seems pretty basic and I urgently need to have subscripts and superscripts. Does anybody know how to do that in a nice way? Thanks for your insights, You might take a look at Ipe. I've used both Dia and Ipe, and I believe Ipe is much better at handling text (assuming the diagram is headed for inclusion in a LaTeX document). Paul
Re: Lyx-code formatting
Dave Mills wrote: Hi, I've got a document with some numbered chemical reaction equations formated as lyx-code. The problem is, when I generate a PDF the equations run over the edge of the page, they don't wrap around to the next line. Is it possible to make them wrap? Some ERT needed? Any other suggestion? I'm using Lyx 1.3.5 on OSX 10.3.9 cheers, Dave The LyX code environment is like the preformatted tag in HTML -- text is reproduced verbatim, monospaced. If you want it verbatim and want it to fit, you can block it and use Layout->Character->Size to shrink it. Alternatively, if you want it to wrap, you could try switching to another environment (standard? quote? definition?) and use Layout->Character->Family to change the font family to typewriter. Paul
Lyx-code formatting
Hi, I've got a document with some numbered chemical reaction equations formated as lyx-code. The problem is, when I generate a PDF the equations run over the edge of the page, they don't wrap around to the next line. Is it possible to make them wrap? Some ERT needed? Any other suggestion? I'm using Lyx 1.3.5 on OSX 10.3.9 cheers, Dave -- David Mills Queen Mary, University of London Department of Chemistry Mile End Road E1 4NS, London, UK Phone: +44 (0)20 78824764 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
> "Peter" == Peter Flynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> Even money says that the install script is hard-wired to look Peter> in wherever RH's tetex puts the texhash (and doubtless Peter> kpsewhich) binary, instead of relying on the path to pick up Peter> the right one. No matter, all is now serene. This is not the case actually. However, I suspect that rpm, when building the .rpm file, replaces calls to texhash with absolute paths to where the command was found. So there is not much we can do about it. JMarc
Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
> "Peter" == Peter Flynn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Peter> Paul A. Rubin wrote: >> Sorry, my wording was fuzzy. I don't have a working Linux box handy >> these days, but I assume that LyX runs with the permissions of >> whatever user is logged in. So if you can run latex directly, >> presumably when you run the LyX configure script it has the same >> permissions. Peter> Actually the other way round: RPMs *have* to be installed as Peter> root, and the configure script is built into the RPM, so it Peter> automatically executes *as root* immediately after unpacking Peter> LyX...the user doesn't enter into this at all. Yes, this is a problem. Actually, I think that we could get rid of this configure script invocation at install time, but I have to test it a bit more carefully. Peter> This is madness. All it has to do is a `which kpsewhich` to Peter> find out if a local installation of TeX exists or not. *Then* Peter> it can test the version of LaTeX identified, and see if it Peter> works, and only go hunting for latex binaries as a last resort. Well, to my defense, I will say that things were a bit different when I wrote this code long long ago :) Are we now in a situation where _all_ worthy TeX installations rely on kpathsea? Peter> Absolutely. Some people have truly the weirdest stuff on their Peter> systems. But it's a better plan to search for a working version Peter> first, and only go looking for a better one if the first one Peter> turns out to be a lemon. I am not sure yet what I want to do. If I have my own "latex" wrapper in my PATH, I would not want LyX to try to be clever and use the real latex instead. JMarc
Re: Does Edit Preferences Converters work for you??
On Monday 12 September 2005 06:59, Paul Johnson wrote: > I can manually edit the file ~/.lyx/preferences to make the converter > known to Lyx. And the Sweave magic does work. After adding the line you need to click Modify and then Save (in the same dialog). It is not intuitive I agree. :-) > But I can't get there with the LyX GUI It is possible but awkward. -- José Abílio
Re: dia help
Hi myriam, I have used dia for illustrations and I found that the best way to use them in LyX/Latex is the following way: Dia -> xfig -> pdf/latex. A shell script for this conversion is attached. It produces two files: .pdf and .tex. To include your drawing in the document go for Insert>Include File... and enter the name of the .tex file in the dialog that comes up. In this way, you can use latex commands in Dia. These will be interpreted by latex when compiling the main document. The result looks much better. However, the process is a bit tricky, with many things that can go wrong. Let me know if it works for you. Vasek On Monday 12 September 2005 01:01, Myriam Abramson wrote: > Hi! > > Somebody on this list might be familiar with the dia editor tool for > drawing diagrams on many Linux distributions. > > The text facility seems pretty basic and I urgently need to have > subscripts and superscripts. Does anybody know how to do that in a > nice way? > > Thanks for your insights, -- - Ing. Vaclav Smidl, Ph.D.tel: +420 26605 2420 AS department, Institute web: http://www.utia.cas.cz/AS/smidl/ of Information Theory and Automation, fax: +420 26605 2068 Prague, Czech Republic dia2pdftex Description: application/shellscript
Re: OT: tetex RPMs (was: Re: Problems installing 1.3.6-1 RPMs
Peter Flynn wrote: > All that's required is for the maintainer of the tetex RPMs to use > up-to-date versions from CTAN, and for the author of the embedded > install script in the LyX RPM to test for a working kpsewhich instead > of assuming it's in the location the RH tetex RPMs install it. It does so, but what you are seeing is the rpm dependency of the LyX rpm on the TeX rpm. If you install LyX from rpm, it will depend on the TeX rpm (see below). This is done on purpose, otherwise the rpm would be useless for ordinary users who use the TeX rpm. If you don't have the TeX rpm, install LyX from source, or use the --nodeps switch of rpm. As Jose' wrote: You are on your won if you want to use the LyX rpm without its dependencies. > Sorry for the OT flak, but I've been supporting TeX for 20 years, and > the inconsistencies of the RH tetex RPMs are the biggest headache we > have. If that really is the case use something else. The important thing to remember is: rpm and yum do not know of software that is installed from something else than rpms. So if you don't install TeX from an rpm you will get missing dependencies in may TeX related rpms. This is no error, neither of the packages nor of rpm, it is the way how the rpm system was designed and works. You can work around this either with the --nodeps switch of rpm, or by installing these packages from source. Georg