Re: new LaTeX2e
From: Julian Gilbey <J.D.Gilbey@qmw.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: new LaTeX2e
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 05:18:26 +0100 (BST)
> > But I have few more questions about tetex package.
> >
> > 1. If LaTeX is separated (multi-)package from tetex, then
> > at least it is easy to update personally part of LaTeX.
> > How about this ?
>
> Don't even think about it: as has just been found out, there are too
> many dependencies between the rest of the texmf stuff and LaTeX for
> this to be wise.
Oh yes, I can guess it may be so.
> Thomas Esser just explained that the reason he has
> waited for a while without putting the new LaTeX into teTeX is that
> there was a bug in Babel which meant that the new LaTeX would fail
> under certain conditions. But it'll be there soon.
I see.
> > 2. To make Japanized LaTeX's format file (*.fmt), at least *.ltx
> > ltdirchk.dtx docstrip.dtx ltvers.dtx are needed in
> > /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base. This situation may occur in other
> > revised LaTeX (I am not sure if there are really any other such LaTeX).
> > Isn't it better to include above files in some package, for example,
> > in tetex-dev ?
>
> This is really a TeX/LaTeX implementation question, and affects far
> more than just Debian's packaging of it, as far as I can tell
> (AFAICT). The teTeX mailing list would be a good place to ask these
> questions (tetex@informatik.uni-hannover.de).
It may be so but, since tetex contains every stuffs needed for
Japanized LaTeX, so Debian can even now provide enough environment
to build Japanized LaTeX, isn't it ?
In any case, I am very glad to have a response.
Thank you for your kind comments.
--
Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Reply to: