texlive-base (2007-14) unstable; urgency=low
* fix latin.ldf with the version from CTAN (Closes: #451295)
(and also closes Ubuntu bug #157709)
* Update location of upstream iso.zip file in uscan watch file (closes:
#449619), thanks to Raphael Geissert [fk]
* do not install tex/latex
On Mo, 19 Jan 2009, nigel wrote:
> I am running Ubuntu 8.04 and have run into the same problem. I have
> read the thread and have a question. Why didn't you just inform this
A placeholder was added to texlive-latex-base in version 2007-14 in
Debian from 19 April 2008.
So I consider this fixed.
I am running Ubuntu 8.04 and have run into the same problem. I have
read the thread and have a question. Why didn't you just inform this
thread that fancyheadings.py was depreciated in 1996. (excerpt from
fancyhdr and fancyheadings)
% May 7, 1996:
% version 1.98:
% Added % after the line \def\
On Mo, 07 Apr 2008, saulius wrote:
> Please, put the fancyheadings.sty back into some Ubuntu package.
The next texlive packages in Debian will already contain a dummy package
calling fancyhdr since it was uploaded to CTAN. Things every one of you
could have done, too.
Best wishes
Norbert
--
I can confirm that the fancyheadings.sty is not installed withe neither
texlive-latex-extra nor tetex-extra packages.
I do not see any reason to declare the packages fancyheadings.sty as obsolete;
even
if there is one, there is no reason to remove it from Ubuntu, ever. If not in
main packages,
i
I have just updated my Kubuntu from 7.04 to 7.10 and was a little
shocked to see that one of my favorite LaTeX styles went missing.
Seriously: Fancyheadings is described in a number of LaTeX books. In
fact, it's part of my private letterhead that I based on an detailed
example letterhead in Kopkas
On Do, 17 Jan 2008, kenned wrote:
> Just wanted to chime in, saying that at our university we also the
> fancyheadings in a ton of documents, and I would much prefer to waste a
> bit of space, instead of having to go through all the docs changing the
> latex source and verifying that the layout is
Just wanted to chime in, saying that at our university we also the
fancyheadings in a ton of documents, and I would much prefer to waste a
bit of space, instead of having to go through all the docs changing the
latex source and verifying that the layout is unaffected by the change.
Cheers,
Kenneth
On Mi, 14 Nov 2007, DJB wrote:
> I too would like fancyheaders.sty back. Its used often, and clearly not
> everyone agrees the obsolete label is correct. Hell, prof's are still
The obsolete label is correct as defined by the position on the CTAN
archive in obsolte ...
> insisting at my school (
I too would like fancyheaders.sty back. Its used often, and clearly not
everyone agrees the obsolete label is correct. Hell, prof's are still
insisting at my school (CMU) that proofs are typeset with it.
What is the problem with keeping it? its only 9286 bytes in feisty!
The argument that some
Such a "redirect" style could have been integrated to tex-live ;-))
But I can see that a new tex distribution won't care for all addons of all
other tex distributions.
For me and the other people with document bases uses fancyheadings.sty,
the TEXMFLOCAL approach is far more convenient, even if w
On Di, 23 Okt 2007, Christoph Lechleitner wrote:
> sudo wget http://www.ibcl.at/files/fancyheadings/fancyheadings.sty
I would have created a
fancyheadings.sty
as follows:
\NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}
\ProvidesPackage{fancyheadings}
\PackageWarning{fancyheadings}{%
= WARNING
As it took me half an hour's research to follow the TEXMFLOCAL hint
above, I decided to create a Mini-HowTo and took the liberty of making
the two .sty files available:
These steps make fancyheadings.sty (from Ubuntu feisty's tetex-extra
package) available in Ubuntu gutsy and took the liberty of m
On Mi, 17 Okt 2007, Tjl wrote:
> I must agree with the above comments that fancyheadings.sty certainly
> should not be removed - backwards compatibility is of paramount
fancyheadings was latex209, it can be found on
CTAN/obsolete/macros/latex209/contrib/fancyheadings.tar.gz
(note the obso
Maybe a transitional period would also be fine, in which using the
fancyheadings just displays a deprecation warning.
--
fancyheadings.sty disappeared
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/132399
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ub
I must agree with the above comments that fancyheadings.sty certainly
should not be removed - backwards compatibility is of paramount
importance: I must be able to compile my old docs without jumping
through hoops. Not including it will waste several peoples' time down
the line.
Please do add back
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:13:05AM -, luke2760 wrote:
> I just spent an hour trying to decipher this error message from plywood, a
> latex package which I installed after upgrading:
> Traceback (most recent call last):
> File "/usr/bin/plywood", line 5, in
> from pkg_resources import lo
I just spent an hour trying to decipher this error message from plywood, a
latex package which I installed after upgrading:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/plywood", line 5, in
from pkg_resources import load_entry_point
ImportError: No module named pkg_resources
Turns out
I solved my performance problem with tex stuff run as non-root, using
top and Google:
In this article ...
http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/MacOSX-TeX-Digests/2001/MacOSX-TeX_Digest_11-26-01.html
... from 2001 (!) I found:
--- SNIP ---
- Added '$HOME contains //' check to TeXGSInstaller installation
First let me apologize for my sour note above.
In the first place I just wanted to know if anyone besides me is missing this
fancyheadings style, too.
Then I just wanted to confirm the simple fact, but sometimes my fresh angry
thoughts fall in a feedback loop ;-((
Secondly, MANY THANKS for the t
On Do, 27 Sep 2007, Christoph Lechleitner wrote:
> First, s/fancyheadings/fancyhdr/ does not help, the headings does not
> look correct then.
>From the README:
| fancyhdr is 99% compatible with fancyheadings. The only incompatibility is
| that \headrulewidth and \footrulewidth and their \plain...
First, s/fancyheadings/fancyhdr/ does not help, the headings does not
look correct then.
Maybe it's not that much to change, but I still see no reason to kill
fancyheadings.sty.
We and at least on other firm I know use fancyheadings in script-
generated documents for automatic invoice prodution.
Hi!
On Do, 27 Sep 2007, Christoph Lechleitner wrote:
> I googled some comment that said that fancyheadings.sty was removed from
> debian's TeX packages because it has been marked obsolete for some time.
> This is very ruthless youngster thinking and absolutly unacceptable!
Come down boy ... ever
The fact that fancyheadings.sty is missing in gutsy is obiously true and
I therefore confirm it.
** Changed in: texlive-base (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
fancyheadings.sty disappeared
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/132399
You received this bug notification because you are a membe
fancyheadings.sty is present in feisty's tetex-extra package, but is
missing from gutsy's TeX Live package.
I googled some comment that said that fancyheadings.sty was removed from
debian's TeX packages because it has been marked obsolete for some time.
This is very ruthless youngster thinking an
I'm running gutsy, don't know about feisty
--
fancyheadings.sty disappeared
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/132399
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://li
26 matches
Mail list logo
