On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 11:39:45AM +0200, Joachim Frieben wrote: > "pdftex/pdflatex" is great but not sufficient, as many "tex" files need > plain "latex" to get compiled. True most of my users can not use pdftex/pdflatex at all with their documents, the workflow is usually dvips -Ppdf -o file.ps file.dvi; ps2pdf file.ps if they want a pdf document. Not sure why dvips defaults on using bitmap fonts at this age but then again I don't know much about TeX. > Moreover, I hardly imagine moving > "tetex-xdvi" to "extras" whereas other "tetex-*" packages stay in "core". > A "dvi" viewer is certainly needed in core as many doc files currently are > "dvi" files. Most (all?) of the dvi docs that I can see in my system are also there in pdf or postscript format. Don't you need most of tetex installed just to use xdvi (or whatever else is going to replace it) anyway? > Forget about "gv". This is used by people who adopted it maybe > 10 years ago and never got aware of alternatives. And it's in "extras", too. Even the first year phd students ask me for gv for some reason, it's not that they don't know about the alternatives I *did* tell them about all the other options. It's just that they don't like them, I never got a clear answer why though. > I have rebuilt "evince" with "dvi" support, and it's not that bad! I suggest > to enable "dvi" support by default to encourage user feedback for fixing > open issues with it. Sure, there is no reason not to enable the dvi support. It wont pull in as dependencies the rest of the tetex packages I suspect right? Kostas -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
