On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 04:04:34PM -0800, Dan Ports wrote:
> I plan to replace these ports with the corresponding texlive port,
> along with the following which are up to date but nomaintainer:
I've done this.
Any objections to removing teTeX (and replacing it with texlive)? It's
over 5 years uns
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 06:11:47PM -0800, Dan Ports wrote:
> I'm inclined to go through these and mark the abandoned ones as
> replaced_by the appropriate texlive port. This would ensure we'd have a
> reasonably up-to-date version. Are there any objections to this?
After reviewing a bunch of ports
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 09:12:32PM +0900, Takanori Yamamoto wrote:
> pTeX in TeX Live 2010 works well in many cases.
> I believe most of pTeX users can shift to TeX Live 2010.
>
> Strictly speaking, pTeX in TeX Live 2010 is not upper compatible
> with port:pTeX. For instances,
Thanks for the info
> (Incidentally, pTeX itself is also available in texlive, with the
> texlive-lang-cjk port, but I haven't tried it myself.)
pTeX in TeX Live 2010 works well in many cases.
I believe most of pTeX users can shift to TeX Live 2010.
Strictly speaking, pTeX in TeX Live 2010 is not upper compatible
w
We have a number of ports that install CTAN packages for TeX, which
means they're also in TeX Live and thus also available in one of the
texlive-* ports. Many of these ports are marked nomaintainer, have
obsolete versions, or both. Probably they date back to the teTeX era.
It's obviously confusing
