* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] @ 2001-11-11 8:26 Gary R Van Sickle 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Gary R Van Sickle @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Cygwin Mailing List (E-mail) Markus Hoenicka wrote: > Ok, "latest" was a bit of an exaggeration. Fact is that the MiKTeX > installer needs versions of Windows DLLs which are *not* in e.g. a > WinNT4 installation up to Service Pack 5 (the latest that I've > installed). Is there some reason you can't install SP 6a? I don't know if that would have what you need either, but still, why go slumming any more than you have to? > I bet it won't work on Win95 either. Maybe not. Probably not on Win3.1 either. Or 3.0. Or DOS. With all due respect friend, 1995 *was* approximately six years ago. > The MiKTeX maintainer > used to distribute these DLLs but he does so no more. It's likely not legal for him to do so, depending on the particular DLLs in question. > You wrongly > assume that everyone happily uses Internet Explorer, so this is not a > reasonable path to provide the missing DLLs. Well, you wrongly assume that just because you have Internet Explorer installed that you're forced to use it, happily or otherwise. You aren't. > So on an older Windows > system *without* Internet Explorer MiKTeX will not install. Period. > Ok, so install IE then. Or get a newer version of Windows. Problem solved, no? Or hey, better yet, install a 'real OS' like Linux that you'll *never* have to update! Never did quite understand how exactly that worked.... > (Please excuse my rants about MiKTeX. IMHO it is bad software design > to couple a widely ported software like TeX to the Windows/IE update > spiral by means of the installation software. The Cygwin and fpTeX > installers show that this is not necessary) Neither work on Windows 3.1. Or DOS. I don't see how that then qualifies as 'bad software design'. Don't get me wrong Markus, I'm a far cry from Bill's biggest fan, and I'm (trying to) use Cygwin's teTeX myself, but I don't think you're thinking is entirely clear here. You're using Cygwin right? Hence Windows? Hence you've chosen to get on that "Windows/IE update spiral"? I don't understand; you'd prefer that Windows was the same now as it was in 1995? Why not the same as it was in the even-worse-old-days of 3.1? Or 3.0? Or 2.0? Or DOS? Time marches on, and not just in Windows-land: what was Linux looking like back in '95? Will a '95-vintage Linux installation build and run teTeX? Jeez, now you got me ranting ;-). Sorry folks. Gary R. Van Sickle Braemar Inc. 11481 Rupp Dr. Burnsville, MN 55337 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] Gary R Van Sickle @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Markus Hoenicka @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin Gary R Van Sickle writes: > Ok, so install IE then. Or get a newer version of Windows. Problem solved, > no? > When I hit my thumb with a hammer I can get some aspirin, put a bandage on it, and later get plastic surgery to make the thumb look like a human thumb again. Or I avoid hitting my thumb with a hammer. The solution is not to buy a new Windows or to use IE, but to use Cygwin TeX or fpTeX instead. > Or hey, better yet, install a 'real OS' like Linux that you'll *never* have > to update! Never did quite understand how exactly that worked.... > Tell me about it. I run Debian at home. I'd run Debian right here if my IT people would support this. > > (Please excuse my rants about MiKTeX. IMHO it is bad software design > > to couple a widely ported software like TeX to the Windows/IE update > > spiral by means of the installation software. The Cygwin and fpTeX > > installers show that this is not necessary) > > Neither work on Windows 3.1. Or DOS. I don't see how that then qualifies > as 'bad software design'. > Cygwin claims proudly on its homepage that it runs on every Win32 version except WinCE. This is good software design because it will install on the very Windows box that you happen to have. MikTeX is lousy software design because it hides TeX, which would also run on any Win32 version (except maybe WinCE), behind an installer that needs software components available only in a part of all Win32 installations. It is especially lousy because there is no technical reason to do so. The MiKTeX installer does *nothing* that the fpTeX installer or Cygwin setup.exe couldn't do. And the latter work with every Win32 version (except WinCE, of course). > Don't get me wrong Markus, I'm a far cry from Bill's biggest fan, and I'm > (trying to) use Cygwin's teTeX myself, but I don't think you're thinking is > entirely clear here. You're using Cygwin right? Hence Windows? Hence > you've chosen to get on that "Windows/IE update spiral"? I don't > understand; you'd prefer that Windows was the same now as it was in 1995? > Why not the same as it was in the even-worse-old-days of 3.1? Or 3.0? Or > 2.0? Or DOS? Time marches on, and not just in Windows-land: what was Linux > looking like back in '95? Will a '95-vintage Linux installation build and > run teTeX? > My perspective may be skewed, but I work in a department of approx. 100 people in Medical School, UT Houston. We have as many computers, with maybe 10 Macs, leaving 90 Windows boxes. Approx. 70 of these run WinNT, 10 or so Win95. Only those that were bought more or less recently run Win2000 or XP. Our IT department is not supposed to update our boxes just because Windows is so much fancier these days. As long as we can punch in our data, these boxes will run WinNT. And due to tons of virus problems with IE, the default browser is still Netscape 4.7. You have to keep conservative environments like these in mind when you tell everyone how easy it is to just buy a new Windows and pull a new IE every other month. > Jeez, now you got me ranting ;-). Sorry folks. > Has to be once in a while. regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka, PhD UT Houston Medical School Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology 6431 Fannin MSB4.114 Houston, TX 77030 (713) 500-6313, -7477 (713) 500-7444 (fax) Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] @ 2001-11-11 8:26 Gary R Van Sickle 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Gary R Van Sickle @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Cygwin Mailing List (E-mail) Robert Collins wrote: > From: "Jerome BENOIT" <520066587150-0001@t-online.de> > > > > > > Markus Hoenicka wrote: > > > > > > The texmf tree is a tar.gz file available at every CTAN server which > > > includes all but the binary files for a teTeX system. This is > > > platform-independent, as these are only text files. > > > > > > With the new dependence stuff in setup it *could* be made a separate > > > package. I have no idea about licensing issues, though. > > > > I have nothing to add. > > Unless I'm mistaken, you are the current Textex-beta maintainer. So you need > to decide whether you will add this texmf stuff to tetex-beta, or whether a > new package that contains it is needed. (I supect a new package makes sense > if the texmf stuff doesn't change every time you compile the binaries). Just something to keep in mind here: the texmf .tar.gz is somewhere on the order of 30MB. wget sucks it down quite adequately over a modem or 1/2ISDN here in the good ol' US of A, but rarely without a few restartable retries. Until Cygwin's setup gets such functionality, my guess is it would probably cause more grief than it cures to add it as a package, just due to its size. Gary R. Van Sickle Braemar Inc. 11481 Rupp Dr. Burnsville, MN 55337 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 Gary R Van Sickle @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Robert Collins @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gary R Van Sickle, Cygwin Mailing List (E-mail) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary R Van Sickle" <tiberius@braemarinc.com> > Just something to keep in mind here: the texmf .tar.gz is somewhere on the > order of 30MB. wget sucks it down quite adequately over a modem or 1/2ISDN > here in the good ol' US of A, but rarely without a few restartable retries. > Until Cygwin's setup gets such functionality, my guess is it would probably > cause more grief than it cures to add it as a package, just due to its size. That sounds like a good reason to have it as a separate package to the binaries. Once such a package is mirrored, you can download it quite happily from your nearest mirror. As for setup... patches welcome :]. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* RE: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] @ 2001-11-11 8:26 Robinow, David 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Robinow, David @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin Could be. Microsoft routinely includes important system updates with IE, thus forcing people to download it. If this keeps up they could run Netscape out of business. Somebody should take them to court. -----Original Message----- From: Markus Hoenicka [mailto:Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu] Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Strange, we haven't had any complaints. It seemst that MiKTeX > installs and runs flawlessly. Note that, of course, MiKTeX is > packaged in a tarball and installed through setup.exe. Maybe our > Windows users are all using that latest software? Is it really only me running WinNT without IE > 2? -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* no more package moratorium? @ 2001-11-02 12:06 Gareth Pearce 2001-11-02 12:19 ` Robert Collins 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Gareth Pearce @ 2001-11-02 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin subject asks the question... I gathered that the release of new setup was going to bring the moratorium down ... if so I might start considering packaging up nano, assuming I can work out how to patch it consistantly... so umm anyone want to give an answer? Gareth _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: no more package moratorium? 2001-11-02 12:06 no more package moratorium? Gareth Pearce @ 2001-11-02 12:19 ` Robert Collins 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Corinna Vinschen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Robert Collins @ 2001-11-02 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gareth Pearce, cygwin That seems a reasonable thing to me. It does raise an interesting point: who, when, and how, do new packages get approved? (I don't mean the physical quality of the packaging either :}). Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gareth Pearce" <tilps@hotmail.com> To: <cygwin@cygwin.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 7:25 AM Subject: no more package moratorium? > > subject asks the question... I gathered that the release of new setup was > going to bring the moratorium down ... if so I might start considering > packaging up nano, assuming I can work out how to patch it consistantly... > > so umm anyone want to give an answer? > > Gareth > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp > > > -- > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > > -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: no more package moratorium? 2001-11-02 12:19 ` Robert Collins @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Corinna Vinschen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Corinna Vinschen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 06:29:33PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: > That seems a reasonable thing to me. Yeah, I think we will drop the package moratorium in the next days. > It does raise an interesting point: who, when, and how, do new packages > get approved? That's a problem when getting lots of new packages. The forum for discussion and the approval process is cygwin-apps. However, it's not the forum to send loads of tar archives so we will have to find some standarized way as, just as an example: - Potential contributor announces on cygwin-apps that s/he wants to contribute package `foo' with a short description what the package does and what has been done to fullfil Cygwin requirements (textmode/binmode issues, sending a setup.hint file which shows the dependencies to other packages, etc.) - cygwin-developers discusses if the package should become part of the distro and chooses a person from cygwin-developers as approver. - The contributor gets asked to upload the package (bin+src tar.bz2 archives) to an upload area on cygwin.com or by sending it to the approver. That's the approver's choice. - When the approver thinks the package is ok, the contributor is (obligatory!) asked if s/he's willing to maintain the package in future and if s/he's willing to announce officially when s/he's not anymore willing to maintain the package. - The package gets uploaded and the contributor becomes official Cygwin maintainer for that package. - When the contributor/maintainer announces to drop maintainership, we will ask for another person willing to maintain the package further. If we don't find another person within, say, three months, the package will be removed from the distro. Something like that. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: no more package moratorium? 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Corinna Vinschen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen [not found] ` <m3k7wr50fa.fsf@appel.lilypond.org> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Collins; +Cc: Corinna Vinschen Robert Collins <robert dot collins at itdomain dot com dot au> writes: > I think the process for that part should be something like > > sponsor (for new maintainers) or maintainer (2nd package or new > version > of existing) places the packages files at a URL. > They tell someone from <list of maintainers with write access>. > <someone> uploads to cygwin.com. > > If there is _any_ doubt about the package quality, upload it as > experimental. Wait 3 weeks, and if there are no bugs reported, then > edit > setup.hint to make that new versiom current. > > Thoughts on this? What about existing packages? Specifically, it would be grand if tetex-beta would either get fixed or removed. Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <m3k7wr50fa.fsf@appel.lilypond.org>]
* tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] [not found] ` <m3k7wr50fa.fsf@appel.lilypond.org> @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Markus Hoenicka @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen; +Cc: cygwin Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > http://lilypond.org/wiki/?TroubleshootingWindows). We currently use > and distribute MikTeX, because it works reliable, and right out of the > box. You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the latest Internet Explorer. > But I'd much rather we could use tetex. Using MikTeX from > cygwin is `cygpath hell'. I have instructions about installing a SGML system on Windows which also uses TeX for the printable output: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/cygbook1.html I provide a very simple shell script (for SGML->PS/PDF transformations) that takes care of the 'cygpath hell'. It is not that hard. It used to work for MiKTeX and works now for fpTeX and for Cygwin teTeX (and even for TeX on Unix platforms). > > > Please try to provide useful bug reports. "Is broke, please > > fix" does not count as useful, IMHO. > > Tetex-beta, as installed by setup.exe (v1.3.5) fails the first simple > LaTeX test: > > tineke@DOOS ~$ latex sample2e > This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.3) > I can't find the format file `latex.fmt'! > tineke@DOOS $ uname -a > CYGWIN_98-4.10 DOOS 1.3.5(0.47/3/2) 2001-11-13 23:16 i586 unknown > Did you install the teTeX texmf tree? Just installing Tetex-beta is not enough, as explained by the Tetex-beta readme. This was also discussed on this list right after the first release of this package. regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka, PhD UT Houston Medical School Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology 6431 Fannin MSB4.114 Houston, TX 77030 (713) 500-6313, -7477 (713) 500-7444 (fax) Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] Markus Hoenicka @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Charles Wilson @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Hoenicka; +Cc: Jan Nieuwenhuizen, cygwin Markus Hoenicka wrote: > > Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > > http://lilypond.org/wiki/?TroubleshootingWindows). We currently use > > and distribute MikTeX, because it works reliable, and right out of the > > box. > > You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the > latest Internet Explorer. Are you saying MikTeX only works on WXP? WRONG. I've run MikTeX 2.1 on W98, WNT, W2K (and have no reason to assume it won't work under WMe.) Now, I'm not arguing against tetex, but let's confine the arguments to factual ones, not FUD. Are you saying MikTeX only works with IE6.0? Again, WRONG. I've used MikTeX with IE5.0, 5.5, 5.5sp1, and 5.5sp2. If you wish to keep your IE4, then you can download the appropriate DLLs that enable the setup engine separately -- details given at the MikTeX website. Again, stick to facts, not FUD. > > > But I'd much rather we could use tetex. Using MikTeX from > > cygwin is `cygpath hell'. I guess. I've never had many problems. I use MikTeX + cygwin + make all the time, and rarely have to resort to cygpath (of course, I usually build using only relative directories, so D:\\ vs. /cygdrive/d isn't really an issue for me) There are arguments in favor of tetex over MikTeX, but the "latest Windows" or "latest IE" are not among them. --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Markus Hoenicka @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin Charles Wilson writes: > > You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the > > latest Internet Explorer. > > Are you saying MikTeX only works on WXP? WRONG. I've run MikTeX 2.1 on > W98, WNT, W2K (and have no reason to assume it won't work under WMe.) > Now, I'm not arguing against tetex, but let's confine the arguments to > factual ones, not FUD. > > Are you saying MikTeX only works with IE6.0? Again, WRONG. I've used > MikTeX with IE5.0, 5.5, 5.5sp1, and 5.5sp2. If you wish to keep your > IE4, then you can download the appropriate DLLs that enable the setup > engine separately -- details given at the MikTeX website. > > Again, stick to facts, not FUD. > Ok, "latest" was a bit of an exaggeration. Fact is that the MiKTeX installer needs versions of Windows DLLs which are *not* in e.g. a WinNT4 installation up to Service Pack 5 (the latest that I've installed). I bet it won't work on Win95 either. The MiKTeX maintainer used to distribute these DLLs but he does so no more. You wrongly assume that everyone happily uses Internet Explorer, so this is not a reasonable path to provide the missing DLLs. So on an older Windows system *without* Internet Explorer MiKTeX will not install. Period. (Please excuse my rants about MiKTeX. IMHO it is bad software design to couple a widely ported software like TeX to the Windows/IE update spiral by means of the installation software. The Cygwin and fpTeX installers show that this is not necessary) regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka, PhD UT Houston Medical School Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology 6431 Fannin MSB4.114 Houston, TX 77030 (713) 500-6313, -7477 (713) 500-7444 (fax) Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Hoenicka; +Cc: cygwin Markus Hoenicka <Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu> writes: > Did you install the teTeX texmf tree? Just installing Tetex-beta is > not enough, as explained by the Tetex-beta readme. This is exacly why I asked if there was any chance if this would get fixed (.. is not enough), or if tetex-beta would be removed or marked experimental again with this lifted package moratorium new strictness. It would be Very Good (TM), if installing a package (and its dependencies, eg, tetex-texmf) would be `enough' for the package to work. This is what Debian and Red Hat packages do, usually. Having a broken package that doesn't get fixed by it's maintainer is arguably worse than having none at all. Maybe Cygwin should introduce something like Debian's Non-maintainer uploads to address this problem? Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Robert Collins @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Hoenicka, Jan Nieuwenhuizen; +Cc: cygwin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jan Nieuwenhuizen" <janneke@gnu.org> > Having a broken package that doesn't get fixed by it's maintainer is > arguably worse than having none at all. Maybe Cygwin should introduce > something like Debian's Non-maintainer uploads to address this problem? NMU's require a consistent and self documenting package management system - which we do not have today. Once we have that, then I've no problem with this concept. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 2 siblings, 2 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Hoenicka; +Cc: cygwin Markus Hoenicka <Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu> writes: > You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the > latest Internet Explorer. Strange, we haven't had any complaints. It seemst that MiKTeX installs and runs flawlessly. Note that, of course, MiKTeX is packaged in a tarball and installed through setup.exe. Maybe our Windows users are all using that latest software? > I have instructions about installing a SGML system on Windows which > also uses TeX for the printable output: > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/cygbook1.html Thanks, but I don't think that would do. Currently, windows users run setup.exe, and they get a working LilyPond environment. We get lots of questions and complaints if it doesn't work that way. Even if there are simple, step by step, instructions on what to do after running setup.exe. > I provide a very simple shell script (for SGML->PS/PDF > transformations) that takes care of the 'cygpath hell'. It is not > that hard. Yes, we distribute shell scripts too, that cygpath the tex/mf environment settings. But this is all rather ugly. mktextfm and such don't really work, when triggered from the kpathsea lib. > It used to work for MiKTeX and works now for fpTeX and for > Cygwin teTeX (and even for TeX on Unix platforms). Ah, but then you know how difficult it can be to write or debug a texmf.conf, and why you don't want users that haven't ever heard of TeX or environment variables (or tar for that matter) to even have to touch a tex installation? (Unless you live from giving support, perhaps :-) > Did you install the teTeX texmf tree? No, I installed tetex-beta, that's all the tetex that setup.exe will install, right? That's why we still have to distribute and maitain our own, modified setup.exe and repository (apart from the just lifted package moratorium). > Just installing Tetex-beta is not enough, as explained by the > Tetex-beta readme. Yes, I know. That's why we can't use it. Users in general won't read READMEs, let alone they would be able to follow simple instructions :-( The fact that there's a README with instructions, instead of an additional tetex package, for example, tells me that there is some intelligent user-interaction required. Greetings, Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Charles Wilson @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen; +Cc: Markus Hoenicka, cygwin Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > Markus Hoenicka <Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu> writes: > > > You can't even install MiKTeX unless you run the latest Windows or the > > latest Internet Explorer. > > Strange, we haven't had any complaints. It seemst that MiKTeX > installs and runs flawlessly. Note that, of course, MiKTeX is > packaged in a tarball and installed through setup.exe. Note to cygwin folks: MikTeX has it's own setup.exe, based on a completely different codebase. (BTW, I thought MikTeX and its packages were packaged as .cab files, not tarballs -- .tgz. I guess I always associate "tarball" with "tar was used to create") [see note below] > Maybe our > Windows users are all using that latest software? > > > I have instructions about installing a SGML system on Windows which > > also uses TeX for the printable output: > > > > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/cygbook1.html > > Thanks, but I don't think that would do. Currently, windows users run > setup.exe, and they get a working LilyPond environment. We get lots > of questions and complaints if it doesn't work that way. Even if > there are simple, step by step, instructions on what to do after > running setup.exe. Again, the MikTeX setup is not the cygwin setup. [see note below] > No, I installed tetex-beta, that's all the tetex that setup.exe will > install, right? That's why we still have to distribute and maitain > our own, modified setup.exe and repository (apart from the just lifted > package moratorium). Okay, now this sounds like lilypond is using a modified *cygwin* setup.exe. Does lilypond distribute it's own version of MiKTeX, using the cygwin setup.exe to do the installation (of the custom MikTeX, and the lilypond stuff)? Geez. I started out trying to clarify the issue, and ended up confusing myself. :-P --Chuck -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Charles Wilson; +Cc: Jan Nieuwenhuizen, Markus Hoenicka, cygwin Charles Wilson <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu> writes: > Okay, now this sounds like lilypond is using a modified *cygwin* > setup.exe. Yes. There was a moratorium on packages, so to get cygwin's setup.exe to download and install the precompiled lilypond tarball (and guile, and an out-of-the-box-working tex), there was no choice but use a modified version. > Does lilypond distribute it's own version of MiKTeX, using the cygwin > setup.exe to do the installation (of the custom MikTeX, and the lilypond > stuff)? Yes, indeed, that's it. I think there have been attempts to fix tetex-beta, to work right out of the box, but up till now, no-one has successfully done this and contributed it. So, we continue to include miktex... > Geez. I started out trying to clarify the issue, and ended up confusing > myself. :-) Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 1 sibling, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Markus Hoenicka @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes: > Strange, we haven't had any complaints. It seemst that MiKTeX > installs and runs flawlessly. Note that, of course, MiKTeX is > packaged in a tarball and installed through setup.exe. Maybe our > Windows users are all using that latest software? Is it really only me running WinNT without IE > 2? > > Did you install the teTeX texmf tree? > > No, I installed tetex-beta, that's all the tetex that setup.exe will > install, right? That's why we still have to distribute and maitain > our own, modified setup.exe and repository (apart from the just lifted > package moratorium). > > > Just installing Tetex-beta is not enough, as explained by the > > Tetex-beta readme. > > Yes, I know. That's why we can't use it. Users in general won't read > READMEs, let alone they would be able to follow simple instructions > :-( > > The fact that there's a README with instructions, instead of an > additional tetex package, for example, tells me that there is some > intelligent user-interaction required. > Now I see. We're talking about semi-intelligent end-users ;-/ I see no easy way how Cygwin setup.exe could provide a full TeX system unless a copy of the teTeX texmf tree is made part of the distribution. Would that be possible? regards, Markus -- Markus Hoenicka, PhD UT Houston Medical School Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology 6431 Fannin MSB4.114 Houston, TX 77030 (713) 500-6313, -7477 (713) 500-7444 (fax) Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Robert Collins @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin; +Cc: Jerome BENOIT > > > Just installing Tetex-beta is not enough, as explained by the > > > Tetex-beta readme. > > > > Yes, I know. That's why we can't use it. Users in general won't read > > READMEs, let alone they would be able to follow simple instructions > > :-( > > > > The fact that there's a README with instructions, instead of an > > additional tetex package, for example, tells me that there is some > > intelligent user-interaction required. Agreed. If there is missing files/a missing package then that needs to be addressed in setup/the packages. having a README and user interaction isn't always a bad thing, but in this case it sounds like it is. ... > copy of the teTeX texmf tree is made part of the distribution. Would > that be possible? Jerome, oh Jerrrrooooome, care to comment on either including the texmf tree (whatever that is) or does it require adding a new pacakge? And if it needs a new package - do you want to do that, or is it up for grabs? Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jerome BENOIT 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Markus Hoenicka @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: cygwin The texmf tree is a tar.gz file available at every CTAN server which includes all but the binary files for a teTeX system. This is platform-independent, as these are only text files. With the new dependence stuff in setup it *could* be made a separate package. I have no idea about licensing issues, though. regards, Markus Robert Collins writes: > Jerome, oh Jerrrrooooome, care to comment on either including the texmf > tree (whatever that is) or does it require adding a new pacakge? > > And if it needs a new package - do you want to do that, or is it up for > grabs? -- Markus Hoenicka, PhD UT Houston Medical School Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology 6431 Fannin MSB4.114 Houston, TX 77030 (713) 500-6313, -7477 (713) 500-7444 (fax) Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jerome BENOIT 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 0 siblings, 1 reply; 18+ messages in thread From: Jerome BENOIT @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Markus Hoenicka; +Cc: cygwin Markus Hoenicka wrote: > > The texmf tree is a tar.gz file available at every CTAN server which > includes all but the binary files for a teTeX system. This is > platform-independent, as these are only text files. > > With the new dependence stuff in setup it *could* be made a separate > package. I have no idea about licensing issues, though. I have nothing to add. Best wishes, Jerome BENOIT > > regards, > Markus > > Robert Collins writes: > > Jerome, oh Jerrrrooooome, care to comment on either including the texmf > > tree (whatever that is) or does it require adding a new pacakge? > > > > And if it needs a new package - do you want to do that, or is it up for > > grabs? > > -- > Markus Hoenicka, PhD > UT Houston Medical School > Dept. of Integrative Biology and Pharmacology > 6431 Fannin MSB4.114 > Houston, TX 77030 > (713) 500-6313, -7477 > (713) 500-7444 (fax) > Markus.Hoenicka@uth.tmc.edu > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hoenicka_markus/ > > -- > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ -- *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ Jerome BENOIT, Ph.D. *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ Institute of Molecular Biology Friedrich-Schiller University of Jena Winzerlaer Strasse 10, Jena 07745, Germany *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ JGMBenoit@wanadoo.fr *º¤., ¸¸,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
* Re: tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jerome BENOIT @ 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 0 siblings, 0 replies; 18+ messages in thread From: Robert Collins @ 2001-11-11 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: JGMBenoit, Markus Hoenicka; +Cc: cygwin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerome BENOIT" <520066587150-0001@t-online.de> > > > Markus Hoenicka wrote: > > > > The texmf tree is a tar.gz file available at every CTAN server which > > includes all but the binary files for a teTeX system. This is > > platform-independent, as these are only text files. > > > > With the new dependence stuff in setup it *could* be made a separate > > package. I have no idea about licensing issues, though. > > I have nothing to add. Unless I'm mistaken, you are the current Textex-beta maintainer. So you need to decide whether you will add this texmf stuff to tetex-beta, or whether a new package that contains it is needed. (I supect a new package makes sense if the texmf stuff doesn't change every time you compile the binaries). If a new package - you don't need to be the texmf package maintainer, but you can be if you want to. Rob -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 18+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-11-16 1:37 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-11-11 8:26 tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] Gary R Van Sickle 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2001-11-11 8:26 Gary R Van Sickle 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 2001-11-11 8:26 Robinow, David 2001-11-02 12:06 no more package moratorium? Gareth Pearce 2001-11-02 12:19 ` Robert Collins 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Corinna Vinschen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen [not found] ` <m3k7wr50fa.fsf@appel.lilypond.org> 2001-11-11 8:26 ` tetex-beta nitpicking [WAS: Re: no more package moratorium?] Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Charles Wilson 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jan Nieuwenhuizen 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Markus Hoenicka 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Jerome BENOIT 2001-11-11 8:26 ` Robert Collins
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).