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 have no idea how to update it, if it does needs updating.
On 9 June 2013 22:48, Patrick Dickey <pdickeyb...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 case or not, I'm not sure. I think the most > recent attempt at using the packaged version (before your attempts now) > was in Oneric or Precise, and it still had issues. I would say that if > the packaged version works as well as the upstream version, then people > can use it (especially those who are bandwidth limited). Otherwise you > should stick with the upstream one. After the initial installation, the > upstream one shouldn't require a lot of bandwidth to keep updated. > > And I would say that unless you're doing a clean install of Ubuntu, if > you already have the upstream one installed, stick with it. No sense in > removing something that works to replace it with the packaged version of > the same thing (which works too). > > Have a great day.:) > Patrick. > > On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 20:54 -0700, Jonathan Marsden wrote: > > 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 using unpackaged > > texlive instead? Are there tests for the build system that fail when > > using Raring-packaged texlive but succeed when using the unpackaged > version? > > > > Is there a better test suite than "run make and see if the resulting PDF > > looks OK", which I should be using? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jonathan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual > > Post to : ubuntu-manual@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual > Post to : ubuntu-manual@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual Post to : ubuntu-manual@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
