Jonathan Underwood wrote: > 2009/8/31 Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx>: >> Hello, >> >> I haven't followed closely the new packaging of texlive, so you should >> take my comments with caution... >> >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: >>> >>> The new packages obsolete the ancient tetex stuff: >>> tetex-tex4ht >> >> I think that the stand-alone tex4ht could be better than the texlive one. >> It was updated many time a year in the past (but it may change). >> >>> tetex-elvevier >> >> In the past, the version in CTAN of this package used to lag a lot. I'd >> still advise taking the files from the web, especially since there is >> also the old style in the stand-alone package. >> >>> and these utilities: >>> dvipdfm >>> dvipdfmx >>> dvipng >>> xdvi >>> xdvipdfmx >> >> Haven't some of those an upstream different from texlive? > > They do - however I lean towards using ones that come from texlive > though, so we benefit from the integration work the TeXLive developers > do. Once we start down the road of packaging everything with another > upstream separately we get closer to basically developing out own TeX > distribution, and we don't have the manpower to do that. A purest > approach wouldn't consume the class files and packages from TeXLive > either, but would rather take the .dtx files etc from ctan. Clearly > this would be crazy. I think it's fair to regard TeXLive as upstream - > in most cases the other upstreams are more like development sandboxes. > > Jonathan (who presently maintains or comaintains most of those > packages at the mo). > IIRC xdvipdfmx is from texlive (but has not been updated for some time) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
