This is the mail archive of the
docbook-tools-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the docbook-tools project.
Re: TeX saga continues.
- To: satchell@merry.dra.hmg.gb
- Subject: Re: TeX saga continues.
- From: Mark Galassi <rosalia@lanl.gov>
- Date: 06 Sep 1999 16:04:25 -0600
- Cc: DOCBOOK-TOOLS-DISCUSS@sourceware.cygnus.com
- References: <009DDC07.8679FA24.5@merry.dera.gov.uk>
satchell> 1) Upgrading to tetex-0.9-17 is not practical, it is
satchell> linked against glibc-2.1, and a recent libstdc++.
Actually I believe you can runmany versions of glibc (and egcs, which
comes with libstdc++) without a problem. You can certainly upgrade
egcs, since the system does not depend crucially on libstdc++ the way
it does on on glibc; and I remember that when Red Hat 5.x came out
(which you might remember had the much more drastic change of Linux
libc5 -> glibc 2.0), many people with Red Hat 4.2 ran my RPMs by
having both libc5 and glibc2 installed simultaneously.
satchell> 2)(your 3) I tried rebuilding just jadetex form source;
satchell> that gets into trouble with the version of hyperref in
satchell> my installation; I upgraded that from CTAN, and then
satchell> something else complained. I could keep down this track,
satchell> but risk destabilising the whole distribution by working
satchell> behind the package manager's back.
Probably wise, since (1) might still work, and jadetex-2.3 works for
sure.
satchell> I think we can say that the new packages are the point
satchell> of divergence for back compatibility.
Almost :-), but before we say that, *please* explore the simultaneous
gblic-2.0/2.1 issue.