Hi Jonathan,
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 10:30:44PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2009/10/30 Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com:
I'm presenting a complete list of packages shipped in TeX Live to
discuss another possible obsoletions:
dvipdfm
dvipdfmx
I think the latest TeXLive doesn't
2009/10/30 Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com:
I'm presenting a complete list of packages shipped in TeX Live to
discuss another possible obsoletions:
dvipdfm
dvipdfmx
I think the latest TeXLive doesn't include dvipdfm as its
functionality is now covered by dvipdfmx. Anyway, In both cases I am
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 05:26:25PM +, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2009/10/29 Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com:
Currently I'm trying to not to replace any package that has a separate
upstream and is already packaged separatelly in Fedora.
IMO I think we'd be better off adopting the
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:59:30AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set
TEXMFCNF,
so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should
Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:59:30AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set
TEXMFCNF,
so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx
2009/10/29 Jindrich Novy jn...@redhat.com:
Currently I'm trying to not to replace any package that has a separate
upstream and is already packaged separatelly in Fedora.
IMO I think we'd be better off adopting the texlive versions of the
packages, rather than doing a half-and-half job on this
On Thursday 29 October 2009 17:26:25 Jonathan Underwood wrote:
IMO I think we'd be better off adopting the texlive versions of the
packages, rather than doing a half-and-half job on this by packaging
individual upstreams. The reason being that Fedora then benefits from
the integration and
2009/10/29 José Matos jama...@fc.up.pt:
On Thursday 29 October 2009 17:26:25 Jonathan Underwood wrote:
IMO I think we'd be better off adopting the texlive versions of the
packages, rather than doing a half-and-half job on this by packaging
individual upstreams. The reason being that Fedora
Neal Becker wrote:
Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 11:59:30AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set
TEXMFCNF,
so that other
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set TEXMFCNF,
so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive
just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version?
I will try to fix it in the
Jindrich Novy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 03:05:34PM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set
TEXMFCNF,
so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive
just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version?
I
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set TEXMFCNF,
so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive
just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
2009/10/25 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com:
I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set TEXMFCNF,
so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive
just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version?
IMO the latter.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing
13 matches
Mail list logo
