> I agree. Having rpm's is good just for a group of Redhat based systems. It > seems to me that having such a distribution as an alternative to TeXLive > is just a waste of human resources.
There is some truth in that. However, as the user of a bunch of rpm-based Linux systems, any software which does not come in an rpm is a major pain and typically goes straight to the scrap heap. rpm was invented to fix the stellar insanity that is make install PREFIX=/usr. > I think that it would be better to > communicate with maintainers of Linux distributions and add TL to Linux > installation DVD instead of teTeX. Thanks to Thomas (and others), getting a fully functional TeXMF system took as much as insert SUSE DVD, click button. In comparison, what's TeX Live? A CD which contains a TeXMF system which runs off that CD? Very useful for evaluating the software. I did that 15 years ago. Is installing TL to hard disk more of the make-install insanity? Thanks but no thanks. Other platforms? None here, so not exactly a draw-card. There wasn't anything going for TL in the past (well for me). Anything which doesn't give an rpm-installable TeXMF system including a useful macro package set (think teTeX) is less than acceptable. No doubt the Debs think the same. If distributors can package up TL then it's fine, but currently tetex is 280MB and I expect distributors might be re-evaluating inclusion of it if it jumps up by a lot. Would it be advisable/possible to split TL somehow sensible? Can TL be turned into an rpm on-the-fly for disk installation? I don't mind tetex being superseeded by TL, but not easily having rpms is a steep downhill. Volker -- Volker Kuhlmann is list0570 with the domain in header http://volker.dnsalias.net/ Please do not CC list postings to me.
