On Do, 10 Jun 2010, David Roundy wrote:
> I'd just like to add that this is needed for interoperability with
> desktops running Lenny, if one wants to collaborate on writing a paper
> using revtex, since revtex4.1 is not an option (without manually
> installing) on older versions of debian. Perhap
I'd just like to add that this is needed for interoperability with
desktops running Lenny, if one wants to collaborate on writing a paper
using revtex, since revtex4.1 is not an option (without manually
installing) on older versions of debian. Perhaps it could be added to
the existing revtex packa
revtex4-1.cls is supposed to be a drop-in replacement for revtex4.cls
The bugs mentioned in this report should now be fixed upstream,
making the reversion to 4.0 in debian unnecessary.
Please update the debian distribution (in unstable at least).
Thank you
Alan
Release of REVTeX 4.1 (patch lev
for Debian:
On Di, 22 Dez 2009, Norbert Preining wrote:
> What about adding a new tlpsrc package
> revtex4
> that ships the original revtex4 version which is still working?
On Mi, 23 Dez 2009, Karl Berry wrote:
> Meanwhile, Norbert has reinstalled revtex4 (from TL07). It should be
> avail
I think it is a matter of time when somebody as for revtex4 class option
wrapper in order to use documents written using revtex4 package.
FYI, I suggested that to the APS as soon as I realized what had happened
with revtex4.1 (ie, that revtex4.cls had disappeared). They rejected
the idea.
2009/12/23 Norbert Preining :
>
> What about adding a new tlpsrc package
> revtex4
> that ships the original revtex4 version which is still working?
>
> Should we do that in TeX Live?
Yes, that's a good idea. I've been recently bitten by one of the bugs
myself and had to patch things up man
Dear all,
on the Debian side we got a bug report that we ship revtex 4.1 which
seems to be broken, according the aps itself:
http://authors.aps.org/revtex4/index.html
and ask for inclusion of revtex 4.
Stanislav the OP wrote:
On Di, 22 Dez 2009, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> The 4.1 versi
On Di, 22 Dez 2009, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> The 4.1 version is in a separate class file: revtex4-1.cls so there
> is no filename conflict. Actually, because of this it is impossible to
I would suggest that you post this question to the TeX Live list itself.
texl...@tug.org
which is
Hi Norbert,
The 4.1 version is in a separate class file: revtex4-1.cls so there
is no filename conflict. Actually, because of this it is impossible to
process revtex4 files with the never texlive without modifications.
This by itself must be considered a bug of texlive.
Example:
% latex energy.t
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009, Stanislav Maslovski wrote:
> due to bugs in the latter. Therefore, I believe it would be more
> reasonable to ship two versions of revtex. Please, consider this.
I am not sure that this can be done, since there will be (probably,
didn't check) a file name conflict. And we try
Package: texlive-publishers
Version: 2009-4
Severity: wishlist
The amount of scientific papers prepared for revtex4 is huge.
Moreover, as [1] suggests one should not upgrade to 4.1 at this moment
due to bugs in the latter. Therefore, I believe it would be more
reasonable to ship two versions of re
11 matches
Mail list logo
