On 14/06/13 05:24, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
On 06/13/2013 09:50 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
On 12 June 2013 12:32, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
Correct. Well, 12.04 users could try backporting the 13.04 texlive
source packages instead. It could work, but seems more effort than it
is worth at this p
On 14 June 2013 00:24, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> Oh, nice :) Have you started down the path to getting them into the
> precise-backports repository, following the info at
>
> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuBackports
That's not possible. First, backported packages still can't depend on
other bac
On 06/13/2013 09:50 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> On 12 June 2013 12:32, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
>> Correct. Well, 12.04 users could try backporting the 13.04 texlive
>> source packages instead. It could work, but seems more effort than it
>> is worth at this point :)
> Already done: https://laun
You might want to contact the maintainers of the texlive ppa to see if
they'd be willing to help (or take it over). Let them know that it works
on 12.04, and what changes you needed to make to get it working.
Have a great day.:)
Patrick.
On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 12:50 -0400, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> O
On 12 June 2013 12:32, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> Correct. Well, 12.04 users could try backporting the 13.04 texlive
> source packages instead. It could work, but seems more effort than it
> is worth at this point :)
Already done: https://launchpad.net/~texlive-backports/+archive/ppa
It shouldn
Phill,
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013, at 05:37 PM, Phill Whiteside wrote:
> Can we have the script for those running 13.04, please?
Yes. It's in the pkgs/ subdirectory of the ubuntu-manual bzr repo.
I thought I said that in an earlier email?
(1) Install Lubuntu 13.04, log in, open LXTerminal.
(2) wge
Can we have the script for those running 13.04, please?
Regards,
Phill.
On 12 June 2013 20:35, Yorvyk wrote:
> On 12/06/13 17:32, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2013 08:33 AM, Yorvyk wrote:
>>
>> Is there any consensus on this yet?
>>>
>>
>> Noone has said "no, don't use packaged texli
On 12/06/13 17:32, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
On 06/12/2013 08:33 AM, Yorvyk wrote:
Is there any consensus on this yet?
Noone has said "no, don't use packaged texlive it breaks stuff" yet.
From the mail thread (and my own quick test) it appears that the
version in the repos. works for 13.04 a
On 06/12/2013 08:33 AM, Yorvyk wrote:
> Is there any consensus on this yet?
Noone has said "no, don't use packaged texlive it breaks stuff" yet.
> From the mail thread (and my own quick test) it appears that the
> version in the repos. works for 13.04 and the upstream version will
> be needed fo
Is there any consensus on this yet?
From the mail thread (and my own quick test) it appears that the
version in the repos. works for 13.04 and the upstream version will be
needed for those that are running 12.04.
--
Steve
___
Mailing list: https
If I remember correctly at the time we thought people would have
concerns about running a script that set up their computer for them (the
idea of running something without really knowing what it does). Plus
it's a pretty basic script, which has it's problems.
I forwarded the email from the list to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am 10.06.2013 19:39, schrieb Jonathan Marsden:
> I plan to test creation of each translated manual using the
> packaged texlive in Raring.
I just did the translation run for the finished languages for raring
(fr, es, sl) on my raring machine with
Patrick,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013, at 04:22 AM, Patrick Dickey wrote:
> Well the nice thing about all of this is, if you create the script for
> the lubuntu manual, and the packaged version of texlive works for
> compiling the ubuntu-manual, then it would be minor changes to make
> your script work f
Well the nice thing about all of this is, if you create the script for
the lubuntu manual, and the packaged version of texlive works for
compiling the ubuntu-manual, then it would be minor changes to make your
script work for ubuntu as well.
I have a script (if you search the archives) that runs t
On 06/09/2013 08:53 PM, Kevin Godby wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jonathan Marsden
> wrote:
>> But why? What is the benefit, ...
> Historical reasons, primarily.
> Since we've always had problems with the Ubuntu/Debian packages in
> the past, it's become easier to just recommend
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> But why? What is the benefit, assuming texlive is only being used for
> Ubuntu Manual, of using unpackaged Tex Live 2013 over Ubuntu Raring
> packages? What works better, or noticeably faster, or produces higher
> quality manuals in the
On 06/09/2013 05:55 PM, Kevin Godby wrote:
> Ah, okay. You're running TeX Live 2011. tlmgr doesn't let you upgrade
> from 2011 to 2012, so you have to download the TeX Live 2012 installer
> and run through the installation process again.
>
> Since TeX Live 2013 will be released sometime in the ne
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Tony Pursell
wrote:
> When I run
>
> sudo tlmgr update --list
>
> I get
>
> tlmgr: package repository
> http://mirror.ox.ac.uk/sites/ctan.org/systems/texlive/tlnet
> /usr/local/bin/tlmgr: The TeX Live versions supported by the repository
> (2012--2012)
> do not in
On 9 June 2013 23:54, Kevin Godby wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Tony Pursell
> wrote:
> > I suppose that the advantage of the packaged version is that it gets
> updated
> > (if there is an updated version) at least every time you update to a new
> > Ubuntu version and possibly in betw
Hi,
may not be related, but with one of the tools we can make use of, Virtual
Box, was very outdated in the repos. It took a bit of asking around, (read
as begging :P ) to get the updated version into the repo. If the manual
team are keen on using texlive, it needs a sponsor for debian repos. Once
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Tony Pursell
wrote:
> I suppose that the advantage of the packaged version is that it gets updated
> (if there is an updated version) at least every time you update to a new
> Ubuntu version and possibly in between Ubuntu versions. I installed texlive
> for the pre
I suppose that the advantage of the packaged version is that it gets
updated (if there is an updated version) at least every time you update to
a new Ubuntu version and possibly in between Ubuntu versions. I installed
texlive for the precise manual, using the instructions on the website, and
I hav
I'm sure Kevin or Hannie will reply to this also, but here's my .02
worth. Awhile back, the packaged version was limited and behind
compared to the upstream version. Plus we also make in different
languages, so I'm not sure how well the packaged version fares with
those.
Whether that's still the
My (very limited!) experience is that using Raring-packaged texlive
works, for a definition of "works" that just means it creates an English
language PDF file that is viewable in evince and which "looks right"
when so viewed for a minute or two.
Why does the Ubuntu Manual team currently recommend
24 matches
Mail list logo
