Uwe Stöhr wrote:
TechTonics wrote:
If they are installed, update MiKTeX because just yesterday came out
a bugfix release including a new text4ht version.
Then you should have the file htlatex.bat in ~\miktex\bin
I think this may very well work now.
I included a new version of MiKTeX 2.5 in the just announced bugfix
installer version 2.51 that Christian Schenk kindly prepared for our needs.
Check if this improves the tex4ht situation.
Version 2.51 of LyxWinInstaller includes the missing python encoding
files you reported.
thanks and regards
Uwe
Recall that you remarked that my copy and paste of the
Miktex2.5 Tex4ht.cab looked like the older Miktex2.4 version?
Urlike Fischer is a resident guru on the newsgroup that I
quote below. It appears that most of the packages of the
complete download that I chose are the same.
I have tried Miktex2.5 complete again and ran the updates
right away. That was a mistake because the installation
doesn't use all of the complete packages as I noticed when
seeing if there was an htlatex.bat later. The installer
omits the whole Html/xml/sgml package group. So I added
this package group but couldn't update again, so I don't
know if that was a factor. Another thing is that I read
"xxx" works differently on his machine than on some others.
Anyway, I found out why Charles thought the equation output
of htlatex was mediocre while I thought the conversion was
the best in the world. I am going to attach to tiny .pngs
to show you and other readers what I mean.
As I see it the major advantage for LyX users is that the
Miktex2.5 release has an improved Yap but if they have a
need to go from LyX->Tex->htlatex/html->Word .doc format
the Miktex2.5 release is at this point unstable. The lack
of environment was fixed but .eps seems to be problematic.
I suppose you can think of other LyX reasons to co-install.
You were right about paths without spaces for lyx temp
and or work allowed the LyX html export feature to work.
But it misses all the converted png graphics. I wish
Georg would renew his interest in this problem.
So I may try the basic install of Mitex2.5 for Lyx1.4.2
and keep the Miktex2.5 for 1.3.7 since they will both
work and use separate versions in Path_prefix. Or maybe
have different versions installed for different identities
with the for this user only option rather than for all
users, which is probably needed for ghostscript also.
You and Mr. Schenk have worked on these matters diligently.
I'm not sure what other factors in the conversion operate.
Thanks for your efforts and Regards,
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------
news.gmane.org g.c.t.miktex
Subject: [miktex] same cab files for MikTeX 2.4 and 2.5
> > nguyen2 wrote: Dear MikTeXers:
> > Is there any real difference between the cab files in the big
> > packages
> > downloaded for MikTeX 2.5 and the now-obsolete MikTeX 2.4?
Ulrike Fischer responded:
No, not if you mean the cab's of packages like hyperref etc.
Naturally it is possible that the one prepackaged in the 2.5
is more recent or that is one more in 2.5, but you can always
update or install such packages when the need arise.
nguyen2 wrote:
> > They appear to be the same to me but I'd like to hear from more
> > knowledgeable people. I planned to download the big packages using
> > both setup-2.4.1705.exe (MikTex 2.4) and setup-2.5.2406.exe
> > (Miktex 2.5) and compare. The older setup-2.4.1705.exe was able to
> > get the job done but the newer setup-2.5.2406.exe could not finish
> > the downloading, I didn't have a chance to compare them.
Ulrike Fischer responded:
At my opinion doing a basic install is quite enough. If you need more
packages you can install them on the fly, or you can use the ones from
your old texmf tree (the source tree should contain quite a lot). ...
If you have both on one PC the main problem will be the path to the
binaries. Your system will have to know somehow what you mean when you
call "latex".
------------------------------------------------------------
