From owner-freebsd-doc Mon Jun 11 7:46:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mailhost2.dircon.co.uk (mailhost2.dircon.co.uk [194.112.32.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D62A637B403; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 07:46:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mark.blackman@netscalibur.co.uk) Received: from localhost.ch.dircon.net (desk99.ch.dircon.net [195.157.3.99]) by mailhost2.dircon.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA76731; Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:46:22 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200106111446.PAA76731@mailhost2.dircon.co.uk> From: "Mark Blackman" To: Rahul Siddharthan Cc: Mark Blackman , Nik Clayton , Jordan Hubbard , bmah@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: RELNOTESng now default in 4-STABLE, *.TXT files removed In-Reply-To: Message from Rahul Siddharthan of "Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:15:43 +0200." <20010611161543.Q51888@lpt.ens.fr> Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:46:16 +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Somehow I managed to get the impression that pdflatex is part of latex now, but you're right I appear to have been smoking too many herbal cigarettes. Ok, looks like at least a separate port (depending on latex) is in order. Its still going to be big, but more like emacs-big rather than teTeX big (currently 38M+X+libwww+png). This begins to suggest that it would be nice to have a standard hierarchy for installing tex/latex packages. think I'll usurp the teTeX standard. > Mark Blackman said on Jun 11, 2001 at 09:50:54: > > > > Experimented briefly (30 minutes) this weekend and discovered that > > jadetex will need 'latex' at the bare minimum. On top of that, it will > > require a few extra latex packages (colortbl etc.), which is > > presumably why teTeX was an attractive option. It only seems to need > > these for its own documentation but I might have missed further > > requirements down the line. > > > > However, it should be possibly to load the latex packages as extra > > dependencies either as independent packages (a la the p5 perl modules) > > or just like a bunch of little patch files that the 'latex' processor > > sees via a modified path. > > > > > > > > On Friday 08 June 2001 8:55 am, Mark Blackman wrote: > > > > Strictly speaking, we do have latex as a separate port which doesn't > > > > pull in the quite the monstrosities that teTex requires. > > > > > > > > In principle, one could either modify the existing jadetex port > > > > to optionally or exclusively require only latex. I presume jadetex > > > > doesn't fundamentally require much beyond pdf(la)tex (which is in latex > ). > > > > > > > > Latex is pretty big but not quite unthinkably so. > > > > > > > > If this functionality (PDF on release) is considered quite nice > > > > and nobody else wants to jump on it, I might have a go at converting > > > > the jadetex port with the assistance of the current maintainer. > > I don't think pdflatex is in the latex port. It is a separate > project, bundled with tetex. Of the current ports/print tree, only > teTeX seems to include it. > > /usr/ports/print>grep pdflatex */pkg-plist > teTeX/pkg-plist:bin/pdflatex > teTeX/pkg-plist:man/man1/pdflatex.1 > teTeX/pkg-plist:share/texmf/pdftex/latex/config/pdflatex.ini > teTeX/pkg-plist:share/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.fmt > teTeX/pkg-plist:share/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.log > /usr/ports/print> > > So one either needs to create a separate pdf(la)tex port, or use > ghostview to convert ps (from latex+dvips) to pdf; but the latter is > not so efficient. > > - Rahul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message