Re: texlive

        On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:51 AM Patrick Dupre wrote: Hello, texlive 2021 is considered as too old now by latex developers texlive 2022 will come with fc38 if I understand. Is there any option to be able to run texlive 2022 with fc36? Is pdflatex or one of the mo

Re: texlive

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:51 AM Patrick Dupre wrote: > Hello, > > texlive 2021 is considered as too old now by latex developers > texlive 2022 will come with fc38 if I understand. > Is there any option to be able to run texlive 2022 with fc36? > Is pdflatex or one of the more modern variants an o

Re: texlive

ent: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 at 11:36 PM > From: "Patrick O'Callaghan" > To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org > Subject: Re: texlive > > On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 22:22 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > > Hello, > > > > This is the feedback that I got from lyx main

Re: texlive

On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 22:22 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > Hello, > > This is the feedback that I got from lyx maintainer about > the issue psline (previous message) You should post this as a reply to your previous message and keep threading intact so people don't have to search for it. poc _

Re: texlive

Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach sent: > I think it really boils down to what is your conception of "text > processor". That keeps getting redefined, over the years. Early ones were little more than an electric typewriter on screen, sometimes called an article editor. S

Re: texlive

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > At the risk of being pedantic, it doesn't contain a word processor. It > contains a document typesetting system. It has no user interface other > than your favourite text editor (although various GUI-like things have > been developed ar

Re: texlive

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 17:15 +, Beartooth wrote: > Many thanks to all who replied! Even the OT comments > interested me. (I have a BA in pure math.) By way of comparison, my > dissertation (1970) was typed on an electric typewriter, and cut & > pasted with scissors and rubber cement; I n

Re: texlive

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 16:32:04 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 01/24/2016 12:37 PM, Beartooth wrote: >> Is there some reason I don't see to keep this enormous app, or >> would I be better off just telling dnf to remove it?? > > Try removing it with --assumeno to see what else would go away with it

Re: texlive

Am 25.01.2016 um 16:50 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach: On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote: when being forced by my customers to use Word. Would you mind sharing how common this was? The publishing house I had been working for usually does their typesetting with InDesign, a

Re: texlive

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote: when being forced by my customers to use Word. Would you mind sharing how common this was? It's very common in the Pathology community. I wrote two book chapters and published abo

Re: texlive

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote: > when being forced by my > customers to use Word. Would you mind sharing how common this was? -- Bernardo Sulzbach -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedo

Re: texlive

Am 25.01.2016 um 16:21 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach: Just an addition to George's impressive answer: I only tried Word equations on 2013 (the version) and it was painfully bad, sometimes blocking the program for as much as two or three seconds when I was entering a complex fraction. However, maybe

Re: texlive

Just an addition to George's impressive answer: I only tried Word equations on 2013 (the version) and it was painfully bad, sometimes blocking the program for as much as two or three seconds when I was entering a complex fraction. However, maybe it was just a bad installation or something that got

Re: texlive

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:52 +1030, Tim wrote: > > Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because > > its > > ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives? > > > > I know that in general use, I fi

Re: texlive

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 11:25 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > Let's also remind the average Word user that setting up a working > copy > of LaTeX and learning even the basics of the syntax - and what you > shouldn't do - takes a few extra hours when compared to learning a > What You See Is What You

Re: texlive

Let's also remind the average Word user that setting up a working copy of LaTeX and learning even the basics of the syntax - and what you shouldn't do - takes a few extra hours when compared to learning a What You See Is What You Get like Word. In defense of Word and Writer (LibreOffice), most pub

Re: texlive

On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:52 +1030, Tim wrote: > Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because > its > ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives? > > I know that in general use, I find Word horrendous.  But I've never > tried formulae in it, etc., nor use

Re: texlive

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their > > papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX. > > Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined > i

Re: texlive

On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:52:05 +1030 Tim wrote: > Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Patrick O'Callaghan sent: > > It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell > > then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing, > > especially in Maths, Physics

Re: texlive

Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Patrick O'Callaghan sent: > It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell > then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing, > especially in Maths, Physics or CS, since probably 99% of researchers > in those fiel

Re: texlive

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > > FWIW, I think that if you read Patrick's complete statement, he is not > terribly inaccurate: he cites Math, Physics, CS -- to that I would add > statistics and computational methods/OR. If you look at some of the > professional societi

Re: texlive

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:23:47 -0200 Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX > > or its cousin LaTeX. > > Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined

Re: texlive

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan > wrote: > > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their > > papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX. > > Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined > i

Re: texlive

On 01/24/2016 12:37 PM, Beartooth wrote: Is there some reason I don't see to keep this enormous app, or would I be better off just telling dnf to remove it?? Try removing it with --assumeno to see what else would go away with it. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To un

Re: texlive

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX > or its cousin LaTeX. Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined individuals, it is wrong by, let me say it, an order of magnitude. I don'

Re: texlive

On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 21:45 +, Beartooth wrote: > But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a > word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if > any) might call it. It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell then clearly you

Re: texlive

On 01/24/2016 03:01 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:45:36 + Beartooth wrote: On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of using it? As I said originally, afaik, I have never u

Re: texlive

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:45:36 + Beartooth wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > > > Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of > > using it? > > As I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive at all. > > But I

Re: texlive

On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote: > Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of > using it? As I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive at all. But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a word

Re: texlive

Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of using it? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: texlive

Hello: My suggestion is that no matter which distro are using you, install TeXLive 2013 ( http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/133235/installing-tex-live-2013-on-linux) full or TeXLive 2014 (coming soon) from an iso image from the CTAN ( http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/texlive/Images) or

Re: texlive

On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:04:22 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > ! Package babel Error: Unknown option `french'. Either you misspelled it > (babel)                or the language definition file french.ldf was not > found > . > > Is it a lyx of a fedora issue? That question isn't interesting. More i

Re: texlive

> - Original Message - > From: Ed Greshko > Sent: 01/26/14 12:49 AM > To: Community support for Fedora users > Subject: Re: texlive > > On 01/26/14 07:44, Patrick Dupre wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> It looks like that in the fed

Re: texlive

On 01/26/14 07:44, Patrick Dupre wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel >> the following file: >> /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/french.ldf >> has been replaced by: >> /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/francais.ldf

Re: texlive

> > Hello, > > It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel > the following file: > /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/french.ldf > has been replaced by: > /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/francais.ldf > > which becomes incompatible with lyx wh

Re: texlive

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 02:24:52PM +, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Tethys wrote: > > > ConTeXt is literally unusable out of the box (as > > in, it doesn't run at all), which make typesetting my books > > problematic. > > I don't regard conTeXt as a part of TeX/LaTeX. That is a rather weird statem

Re: texlive

Tethys wrote: > TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if > there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to > critical bug reports. I use LaTeX and Metafont under Fedora-17 and Fedora-18 quite a lot, and have had no problems. > ConTeXt is literally unusab

Re: texlive

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 08:44:34PM -0500, George Avrunin wrote: > On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:47:52 +, Tethys wrote: > > > I tried various > > other options and ended up with ConTeXt, which I'm generally pretty > > happy with. Except that it doesn't work on F17. At all. And yes, I do > > mind migrat

Re: texlive

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:47:52 +, Tethys wrote: > I tried various > other options and ended up with ConTeXt, which I'm generally pretty > happy with. Except that it doesn't work on F17. At all. And yes, I do > mind migrating. For new projects, it's not so bad. But for already > published books, i

Re: texlive

Well I have been using TeXlive for a long time, and I do it in different machines and with different OS. But my basic system is Ubuntu LTS, I hate to change my OS every six months and I prefer something more stables. With Fedora in the last versions I have few troubles and I use them but they are n

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 01:27 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: Not really sure why you're bringing in Adobe. TeX/LaTeX have nothing to do with PDF (sure, they can optionally generate PDF output, but that's not the point). As it happens, the difference has been discussed on the scribus mailing list, so I'm

Re: texlive

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:07 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 03/07/2013 10:56 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > That might work for some projects, but generally speaking people using > > TeX/LaTeX are concerned about finer control of typesetting, especially > > when it comes to mathematical material. T

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 11:32 AM, Tethys wrote: If you create a PDF from a given input source, then it goes without saying that it will only be able to position the characters in the same position as they are in the input. If the input supports per-character positioning (as most Adobe products do, FWIW), t

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 11:59 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote: > OK, THis is correct, > > but > > \documentclass[a4paper]{article} > \usepackage{fourier} > \begin{document} > Hello world! > L'{\'E}l{\'e}phant va {\`a} la mare. > \[\frac14=0{,}25\] > \end{document} > > fails: > (/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/late

Re: texlive

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > You may find this interesting, then. PDF files created by Scribus are > considerably larger than those created by Adobe. This is because Adobe sets > the position for a line, then inserts a string of characters for that line. > Scribus sets the

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote: > Hello, > > I installes texlive2012, > but apparently the fonts are not installed! > In additon, when I make, > > rpm -ql texlive > I get: > (contains no files) > > while: > rpm -q texlive > texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 > > Whould I finis

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 10:56 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: That might work for some projects, but generally speaking people using TeX/LaTeX are concerned about finer control of typesetting, especially when it comes to mathematical material. TeX/LaTeX is the gold standard for this. To paraphrase Brian Ker

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 10:47 AM, Tethys wrote: I've been doing this a long time now, and I'm well aware of the alternatives. OK, just asking. I've run across any number of people across the years who learn one way of doing something and keep doing it that way long after there's a better way simply be

Re: texlive

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 10:40 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 03/07/2013 05:34 AM, Tethys wrote: > > TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if > > there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to > > critical bug reports. ConTeXt is literally unusable out of the bo

Re: texlive

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > There are other FOSS options for this, you know. If you don't mind > migrating from a markup language to a GUI, you might consider Scribus. I've > had good luck with it on small projects, and I know that there are > professionals out there using

Re: texlive

On 03/07/2013 05:34 AM, Tethys wrote: TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to critical bug reports. ConTeXt is literally unusable out of the box (as in, it doesn't run at all), which make typesetting my boo

Re: texlive

On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:34:48 + Tethys wrote: > On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre > wrote: > > > I installes texlive2012, > > but apparently the fonts are not installed! > > In additon, when I make, > > > > rpm -ql texlive > > I get: > > (contains no files) > > > > while: > > rpm

Re: texlive

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote: > I installes texlive2012, > but apparently the fonts are not installed! > In additon, when I make, > > rpm -ql texlive > I get: > (contains no files) > > while: > rpm -q texlive > texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 > > Whould I finis

Re: texlive

On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 12:59 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > >> > >> I installes texlive2012, > >> but apparently the fonts are not installed! > >> In additon, when I make, > >> > >> rpm -ql texlive > >> I get: > >> (contains no files) > >> > >> while: > >> rpm -q texlive > >> texlive-2012-16.2013020

Re: texlive

Am 07.03.2013 12:59, schrieb Patrick Dupre: > >>> >>> I installes texlive2012, >>> but apparently the fonts are not installed! >>> In additon, when I make, >>> >>> rpm -ql texlive >>> I get: >>> (contains no files) >>> >>> while: >>> rpm -q texlive >>> texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64

Re: texlive

I installes texlive2012, but apparently the fonts are not installed! In additon, when I make, rpm -ql texlive I get: (contains no files) while: rpm -q texlive texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 Whould I finish the install manually? [root@rh:~]$ yum search texlive fonts ==

Re: texlive

Am 07.03.2013 12:32, schrieb Patrick Dupre: > Hello, > > I installes texlive2012, > but apparently the fonts are not installed! > In additon, when I make, > > rpm -ql texlive > I get: > (contains no files) > > while: > rpm -q texlive > texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64 > > Whould I

Re: texlive in F18: \usepackage{pslatex} -> kpathsea: Running mktexmf ptmr7t - I can't find file `ptmr7t'

> FWIW, I got around the error you reported by doing the following > over-kill. > > yum install texlive*font* Thanks. In fact it comes with texlive-times. In my real document, I also needed: texlive-vmargin texlive-fancyhdr texlive-marvosym texlive-helvetic texlive-pst-tools texlive-symbol

Re: texlive in F18: \usepackage{pslatex} -> kpathsea: Running mktexmf ptmr7t - I can't find file `ptmr7t'

On 01/19/2013 04:43 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: > Do you have texlive-texmf-fonts installed? FWIW, I got around the error you reported by doing the following over-kill. yum install texlive*font* -- Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-p

Re: texlive in F18: \usepackage{pslatex} -> kpathsea: Running mktexmf ptmr7t - I can't find file `ptmr7t'

On 01/19/2013 04:05 PM, Frédéric Bron wrote: > pslatex seems to come corrupted in F18. This simple document does not compile: > > \documentclass{article} > %\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} > \usepackage{pslatex} > \begin{document} > abcde > \end{document} > > kpathsea: Running mktexmf ptmr7t > ! I can't f

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

On 07/14/2012 08:36 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote: ... For the other problem with yum-update, I found that yum-removing texlive-preview and yum-installing tex-preview did the trick. I have also disabled the fedora-updates-testing repo, as this is no longer required to meet a problem with the R-core

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

hakova wrote: >>> They are built on installation. I think yum reinstall tex-\* texlive-\* >>> will fix this. >> >> Thanks very much. >> That did indeed solve the problem. > This did not solve my problem. > #yum check-update still lists the same packages to update and > #yum update still reports

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

Timothy Murphy-5 wrote > > ... >> They are built on installation. I think yum reinstall tex-\* texlive-\* >> will fix this. > > Thanks very much. > That did indeed solve the problem. > This did not solve my problem. #yum check-update still lists the same packages to update and #yum update sti

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

Matthew Saltzman wrote: >> -- >> This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.4-1.40.13 (TeX Live 2012) >> restricted \write18 enabled. >> >> kpathsea: Running mktexfmt latex.fmt >> I can't find the format file `latex.fmt'! >> [tim@blanche Problems]$ pdflatex Problems-08 >> This

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 18:35 -0400, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Matthew Saltzman wrote: > > > I think the solution is to remove texlive-preview and install > > tex-preview from the Fedora 17 repo. The texlive repo no longer lists > > texlive-preview or tex-preview as a package. > > Thanks for your r

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 19:04 -0400, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > How about for the following? > > Error: Package: R-core-2.15.0-1.fc17.x86_64 (@fedora) >Requires: texlive-latex >Removing: texlive-latex-2007-70.fc17.x86_64 (@fedora) >texlive-latex = 2007-70.fc17 >

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

On 07/10/2012 07:35 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote: Matthew Saltzman wrote: I think the solution is to remove texlive-preview and install tex-preview from the Fedora 17 repo. The texlive repo no longer lists texlive-preview or tex-preview as a package. Thanks for your response. That did the trick.

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

Sorry to answer my own post, but cleaning up the cache took care of this problem. Should have thought about that before sending it out! Ranjan On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 18:04:35 -0500 Ranjan Maitra wrote: > How about for the following? > > Error: Package: R-core-2.15.0-1.fc17.x86_64 (@fedora) >

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

How about for the following? Error: Package: R-core-2.15.0-1.fc17.x86_64 (@fedora) Requires: texlive-latex Removing: texlive-latex-2007-70.fc17.x86_64 (@fedora) texlive-latex = 2007-70.fc17 Obsoleted By: 1:tex-latex-svn23639-1.noarch (texlive)

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

Matthew Saltzman wrote: > I think the solution is to remove texlive-preview and install > tex-preview from the Fedora 17 repo. The texlive repo no longer lists > texlive-preview or tex-preview as a package. Thanks for your response. That did the trick. Unfortunately when I try to LaTeX (or pdfL

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 08:25 -0400, Timothy Murphy wrote: > I am running Fedora-17/KDE on my laptop, > and have been trying to update TeXlive. > I've enabled the fedora-updates-testing repo, as was suggested, > but still get the error: > - > [tim@blanche ~]$ sudo yum upd

Re: TeXlive 2012 problem

On 07/10/2012 09:25 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote: I am running Fedora-17/KDE on my laptop, and have been trying to update TeXlive. I've enabled the fedora-updates-testing repo, as was suggested, but still get the error: - [tim@blanche ~]$ sudo yum update texlive* ... Error

Re: texlive 2009

--- On Sun, 3/14/10, Mail Llists wrote: > From: Mail Llists > Subject: Re: texlive 2009 > To: "Community support for Fedora users" > Date: Sunday, March 14, 2010, 8:54 PM > On 03/01/2010 04:49 PM, Berkin Malkoc > wrote: > > > > Bonjour Monsieur Patt

Re: texlive 2009

On 03/01/2010 04:49 PM, Berkin Malkoc wrote: > > Bonjour Monsieur Patte, > > I hope this is not a trivial answer. > > To install latest TexLive (2009), I simply went to > http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire-netinstall.html and after the > download, just followed the instructions which were pointe

Re: texlive 2009

Matthew Saltzman wrote: > The packaging work has been going on for a while, but wasn't ready in > time for F12. It's targeted for inclusion in F13. I doubt it's gonna make F13, we're well past feature freeze now and it's still not in. The literally thousands of review requests are going to take

Re: texlive 2009

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:03 -0500, Kirk Lowery wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Matthew Saltzman wrote: >> >> > A better way is to help with the Fedora packaging effort for >> > TeXLive2009.  Visit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/F

Re: texlive 2009

--- On Tue, 3/2/10, François Patte wrote: > From: François Patte > Subject: Re: texlive 2009 > To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org > Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 10:58 AM > Matthew Saltzman > a écrit : > > > On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 16:54 -0500, Kirk Lowery wrote: &

Re: texlive 2009

Matthew Saltzman a écrit : On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 16:54 -0500, Kirk Lowery wrote: 2010/3/1 François Patte : > I would like to know if someone experienced to install texlive-2009 under > fedora. > > I am running fedora 10. On some computer I installed fedora 12, but in any > of these release te

Re: texlive 2009

--- On Tue, 3/2/10, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > From: Matthew Saltzman > Subject: Re: texlive 2009 > To: "Community support for Fedora users" > Date: Tuesday, March 2, 2010, 10:15 AM > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:03 -0500, > Kirk Lowery wrote: > > On Tue

Re: texlive 2009

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:03 -0500, Kirk Lowery wrote: > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > > > A better way is to help with the Fedora packaging effort for > > TeXLive2009. Visit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TeXLive for > > information on how to add the TeXLive

Re: texlive 2009

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > A better way is to help with the Fedora packaging effort for > TeXLive2009.  Visit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/TeXLive for > information on how to add the TeXLive2009 repository and install from > there. It depends on how you

Re: texlive 2009

On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 16:54 -0500, Kirk Lowery wrote: > 2010/3/1 François Patte : > > > I would like to know if someone experienced to install texlive-2009 under > > fedora. > > > > I am running fedora 10. On some computer I installed fedora 12, but in any > > of these release texlive still remai

Re: texlive 2009

2010/3/1 François Patte : > I would like to know if someone experienced to install texlive-2009 under > fedora. > > I am running fedora 10. On some computer I installed fedora 12, but in any > of these release texlive still remains with 2007 release. I run TL 2009 on Fedora 12. I don't use the rp

Re: texlive 2009

Bonjour Monsieur Patte, I hope this is not a trivial answer. To install latest TexLive (2009), I simply went to http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire-netinstall.html and after the download, just followed the instructions which were pointed to on the same page. Regards, Berkin 2010/3/1 François P