On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Jonathan Marsden <jmars...@fastmail.fm> 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 PDF output, in Tex Live 2013 compared to the > results using the packages?
Historical reasons, primarily. In the past we've had problems because we wanted to use TeX Live packages that weren't packaged in the Debian/Ubuntu packages. We've also been bitten by bugs in the older Ubuntu/Debian packages that had long since been fixed in the upstream TeX Live packages. I haven't tested the Debian/Ubuntu packages for a year or so now, so I can't say whether or not they'll work. If they appear to work when you compile the manual, then feel free to use them. It won't affect the final PDFs that get published since I manage that myself. Since we've always had problems with the Ubuntu/Debian packages in the past, it's become easier to just recommend that everyone install TeX Live from upstream so that they avoid those issues. Incidentally, it looks like Debian sid has texlive packages that are dated 2013. So hopefully Ubuntu will start receiving more regular updates of texlive packages (i.e., new packages every six months instead of getting behind by a year or more as it once was). —Kevin _______________________________________________ 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
