> configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: present but cannot be compiled
> configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
> configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: proceeding with the preprocessor's result
> configure: WARNING: ## ##
> configure: WA
'SunOS 5.9 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100' with the following:
GCC 3.2, GNU Make 3.80, GNU Bison 1.75, GNU flex 2.5.4
Configure yields one item of interest, though probably not related:
# ./configure --prefix=/usr/local/teTeX > configure.log
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: present but cannot be
> I've tried to compile current TeTex on Tru64Unix 5.1A with latest
> version of compilers from Compaq/HP, and I got the error below. Please, cc
> me in any replies.
The fix suggested by Albert Chin looks ok. Olaf Weber (web2c + kpathsea
maintainer) has decided to use % as separator instead as a
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 04:05:36PM +0100, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
> >I think the extra license statements in multicol and listings are just
> >plain silly, and don't know why the authors wasted their time
> >on them.
>
> Well, asking for a voluntary donation for the LaTeX3 project is not a
> bad i
Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Fundamentalism is a Bad Thing. About politics, religion, licensing
> > or anything. And the fact is that teTeX 2.0 have lost usefulness
> > because of such fundamentalism.
>
> I will check if the license of the listings package is ok for free
> softwar
> We, tetex maintainers of Debian, got the bug which said
> that teTeX 2.0 included dvipdfm but a wrapper script
> dvipdft was missing (in the teTeX 2.0 source tree).
When I added dvipdfm to teTeX, I have looked at the dvipdft and found
that it writes to /tmp in an insecure way. Then, just before
El sábado, 15 febr, 2003, a las 14:19 Europe/Madrid, Sebastian Rahtz
escribió:
I think the extra license statements in multicol and listings are just
plain silly, and don't know why the authors wasted their time
on them.
Well, asking for a voluntary donation for the LaTeX3 project is not a
bad
On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 01:05:51PM +0100, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
> >sigh. i expect thomas has been being got at by the debian licensing
> >fanatics. i presume there's no multicol.sty either, since that has
> >similar terms.
>
> Fundamentalism is a Bad Thing. About politics, religion, licensing
> Fundamentalism is a Bad Thing. About politics, religion, licensing or
> anything. And the fact is that teTeX 2.0 have lost usefulness because
> of such fundamentalism.
I will check if the license of the listings package is ok for free
software and put the package back if this turn out to be tr
El sábado, 15 febr, 2003, a las 10:14 Europe/Madrid, Robin Fairbairns
escribió:
sigh. i expect thomas has been being got at by the debian licensing
fanatics. i presume there's no multicol.sty either, since that has
similar terms.
Fundamentalism is a Bad Thing. About politics, religion, licensi
sigh. i expect thomas has been being got at by the debian licensing
fanatics. i presume there's no multicol.sty either, since that has
similar terms.
> And... did anyone contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]?
we (ctan people) did, long ago, and the upshot is the licence
statement you quote. listings isn't
Just after updating to teTeX 2.0, I found that the listings.sty package
is missing. In fact, I found this entry in texmf/ChangeLog:
Sat Dec 7 11:02:32 CET 2002
* update hyperref
* cbgreek fonts
* added cwebman.dvi, cwebmac.tex
* added lettrine package
* li
12 matches
Mail list logo
