On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote: > On 31 Aug 2011, at 14:30, Peter Dyballa wrote: > >>> In other words, xe(la)tex would be the way to go. For awhile. >> >> And therefore keep old versions of Mac OS X! Leopard and Snow Leopard are OK >> (it depends on the hardware it will run on: Mac OS X must be younger than >> the hardware or it won't run on something it does not know). You can either >> clone your recent installation onto a smaller external disk, connected >> through FireWire, because this enables the Mac to boot from it, or onto an >> extra internal disk (when you're using a desk-side computer), or you can try >> to create a virtual instance of a Mac OS X version in which XeTeX is >> supported. > > Why, is there a problem with running the current (Intel build of) xetex on > 10.7? I wasn't aware of this. > > Seems like you're introducing unnecessary complication and confusion.... > > JK
I have only just tuned back in to this discussion, which I confess to having started by noting that I was having a problem compiling XeTeX under the new Xcode, specifically the branch of XeTeX development that was compatible with microtype,sty. I have since found out that the current version of XeTeX in TL2011 has this compatibility. I certainly never said anything whatsoever about a 64bit XeTeX or trying to compile one. But the question remains: How can one compile XeTeX with the new Xcode? I gave an error message in my original post, but I can't seem to locate that right now. In any event, XeLaTeX/microtype/protrusion is working just fine, and looks great -- so I'm happy. Thanks. Stephen Moye -------------------------------------------------- Subscriptions, Archive, and List information, etc.: http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/xetex
