> You probably have caption.sty v1 and v2 (a.k.a. caption2.sty) on your box, but
> Uwe's manual requires a (fairly recent) version of caption.sty v. 3 (which is
> again called caption.sty for some odd reason).
The version 3 of caption.sty was not published as caption3.sty but again as caption.sty. This is a
bit confusing but caption.sty could be caption v1 or caption v3.
>> - my colortbl.sty does not have \cellcolor.
That's the same problematic as with the Solaris ImageMagick problem. I don't understand why the
Linux-distributions ship 5 years old stuff. Stability is one point but when it leads to
incompatibilites. The distros for example always ship the latest Gnome and KDE, so why not also the
other stuff.
teTeX 3 is now 3 years old and I it is recommended not to use teTeX 2 anymore. There are many
changes concerning pdftex, dvips, and teTeX 2 doesn't have the since a while required
eTeX-extensions. So using teTeX 2 could also cause troubles with other programs.
A bit off-topic:
(teTeX is not user-friendly:
We had the case here that Hartmut Haase needed some days until he was able to install the missing
LaTeX-package to be able to translate all parts of the new manual. This is done automatically or
only three clicks way here with MiKTeX, whose package manager is currently ported to Linux. I don't
know how with this infrastructure users is able to install a LaTeX-font.)
>> At this point, I gave up. I can accept that teTeX 2 is too old and I
>> guess I will be happy if we find some kind of fix for the prettyref
>> situation. Also, the manual should state something like "Since this
>> manual uses many different packages, it may not be printable if you do
>> not have a really up-to-date distribution".
I asked a collegue to test my document with teTeX 3 and he told me that it works when prettyref is
installed he installed it manually).
> I'd say that we probably could rely on teTeX 3 nowadays, but _not_ on the very
> latest version of MikTeX or TeXLive, for that matter.
The document doesn't require the latest MiKTeX or TeXLive. TeXLive 2005
compiles it fine.
(I could not test TeXLive 2004 but I see no reason why this shouldn't work.)
I'll remove the preetyref inset in the docs but cannot do this before the weekend. The removal
require more work because I built in a hack because prettyref destroys some hyperref stuff.
But I still dont see that this is a showstopper, see my point below.
---
Concerning the general LaTeX-package support:
You said that the prettyref support was a fault, why? Because it's not in a certain LaTeX-distro?
This rule doesn't apply for MiKTeX, where many of the packages LyX supports are not in the basic
installation and must be installed on demand. So where should be the border?
For example we often have requests to support the listings package. I also would like to support it
but as this is not in MiKTeX's default installation, it cannot be supported? Aren't the
LaTeX-distros for Linux not also only basic installations and you have to install missing packages
on demand?
Btw. As teTeX is no longer developed the Linux distros have to switch to TeXLive the next times.
With TeXLive you are always up to date because it has a build in update manager.
