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
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 a
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 be
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 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
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 migrate,
