On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 10:56 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 12:28:58PM -0500, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
> >
> >
> > It seems reasonable that anything in F9 should be more up to date than
> > anything in F8 (see another post in this thread).
> >
> > tetex-xdvi-3.0-44.3.fc8
> > xdvik-22.84.13-10.fc9
>
> It is; but the main difference is that F8 packages provide 'tetex'
> distribution while rawhide comes with 'texlive' (the later evolved
> from and in continues a work carried for many years by Thomas Esser
> with tetex). Right now you are seeing in rawhide a "transition
> period" and from time to time something may tie itself in a knot
> although in general thing looks really smooth with this. One of
> issues is to provide a natural updgrade path - of course. OTOH
That's why I wanted to bring the issue to somebody's attention 8^).
> mixing here packages from F8 and rawhide does not sound like a good
> idea.
In this case, jnovy's F8 texlive repo isn't being updated. It was he
who suggested pulling the Rawhide versions. tetex is pretty old, now.
I'd like to use texlive , both for myself and to help test. But I can't
afford to run all Rawhide at this point.
>
> Michal
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Mathematical Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
