On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:51 AM Patrick Dupre <pdu...@gmx.com> wrote:
Hello,
texlive 2021 is considered as too old now by latex developers
texlive 2022 will come with fc38 if I understand.
Is there any option to be able to run texlive 2022 with fc36?
Is pdflatex or one
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 5:51 AM Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> texlive 2021 is considered as too old now by latex developers
> texlive 2022 will come with fc38 if I understand.
> Is there any option to be able to run texlive 2022 with fc36?
>
Is pdflatex or one of the more
Hello,
texlive 2021 is considered as too old now by latex developers
texlive 2022 will come with fc38 if I understand.
Is there any option to be able to run texlive 2022 with fc36?
Thank
===
Patrick DUPRÉ
On Tue, 2023-01-10 at 22:22 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> This is the feedback that I got from lyx maintainer about
> the issue psline (previous message)
You should post this as a reply to your previous message and keep
threading intact so people don't have to search for it.
poc
_
Hello,
This is the feedback that I got from lyx maintainer about
the issue psline (previous message)
Your texlive is too old for lualatex and pstricks with directly created
pdf without Ghostscript
Herbert
===
Patrick
Dear members of the list,
I filed a bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1832320) about some
problems using a specific package of tex, namely newtxmath.sty. I use it only
in few documents, and I do not know if it is the case for most Fedora-LaTeX
users. The bug is confirmed by other
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 8:00 PM Jon Ingason wrote:
>
> You need to install texlive-xetex-7:20180414-28.fc29.x86_64 which
> provide /usr/bin/xdvipdfmx.
>
> --
> Regards
>
> Jon Ingason
>
Hi Jon,
Thank you very much. It works.
I'll add your suggestion in the
Den 2018-12-11 kl. 18:43, skrev Marco Guazzone:
> Hi,
>
> On my Fedora 29, the command dvipdfmx does not work:
>
> $ rpm -q texlive-dvipdfmx
> texlive-dvipdfmx-20180414-28.fc29.x86_64
> $ dvipdfmx
> bash: dvipdfmx: command not found
>
> Indeed, the executable
Hi,
On my Fedora 29, the command dvipdfmx does not work:
$ rpm -q texlive-dvipdfmx
texlive-dvipdfmx-20180414-28.fc29.x86_64
$ dvipdfmx
bash: dvipdfmx: command not found
Indeed, the executable file '/usr/bin/dvipdfmx' is a broken link that
points to a nonexistent file:
$ ls -a
Hi Patrick:
Sometimees you need to make a texhash on the terminal for update your
texlive distribution. I suspect you are using pdflatex and maybe that's why
you have to install that font in packages. If the compiler you use is
xelatex or lualatex you can use your truetype and opentype fonts
Thank Carlos,
It is fixed,
However,
dnf whatprovides bbold10.pfb
Last metadata expiration check: 3:02:28 ago on Wed 17 Jan 2018 12:36:59 PM CET.
Error: No Matches found
dnf repoquery -l texlive-bbold.noarch | grep bbold10.pfb
Last metadata expiration check: 3:02:51 ago on Wed 17 Jan 2018 12:36
On 17 January 2018 at 12:29, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I installed:
> texlive-bbold
>
> but the font are not installed:
>
Salut Patrick,
The file you need is included in a different package
[casep@X1Carbon ~]$ sudo dnf repoquery -l texlive-bbold.noarch | gre
On 01/17/18 20:29, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> !pdfTeX error: pdflatex (file bbold10.pfb): cannot open Type 1 font file for
> re
> ading
I know nothing about textlive but doing a "dnf whatprovides" I see
texlive-bbold-type1-6:svn33143.0-36.fc27.5.noarch : An Adobe Typ
Hello,
I installed:
texlive-bbold
but the font are not installed:
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.17 (TeX Live 2016) (preloaded
format=pdflatex)
restricted \write18 enabled.
entering extended mode
(./newfile1.tex
LaTeX2e <2016/03/31>
Babel <3.9r> and hyphenation pa
correspond to whatever source RPM originated the file in question.
>
> Since the Source RPM is texlive, then the plain old texlive name is the
> one to use to report things.
>
> P.S. The only way to discover this is to report things in the wrong
> category and get chewed o
; rpm -q -i -f /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/IEEEtran
Name : texlive-base
Epoch : 4
Version : 2014
Release : 19.20140525_r34255.fc23
Architecture: noarch
Install Date: Mon 22 Feb 2016 07:21:37 AM EST
Group : Applications/Publishing
Size: 7737
Hi,
I wanted to report on Bugzilla that the IEEEtran style file was quite outdated
and needed an update. However, it appears that on BZ there is no entry to list
it under. The only choices I get there are: texlive-extension, texlive-texmf
and texlive-texmf-errata and texlive itself. It is in
Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach sent:
> I think it really boils down to what is your conception of "text
> processor".
That keeps getting redefined, over the years.
Early ones were little more than an electric typewriter on screen,
sometimes called an article editor. S
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> At the risk of being pedantic, it doesn't contain a word processor. It
> contains a document typesetting system. It has no user interface other
> than your favourite text editor (although various GUI-like things have
> been developed ar
rubber cement; I never touched a computer
> till the early Eighties.
My PhD thesis (1978) was written on a PDP-11/45 with 6th Edition Unix,
using "em", formatted in Nroff and printed on a Diablo :-) Luckily for
me, there were no formulae in it.
> For the record, I never
puter till the early
Eighties.
For the record, I never called texlive a word-processor; what I
did say was that it contained one. (That much was obvious just from
skimming the list of routines that got updated by dnf.)
When dnf listed all the things it would delete, I typed the ones
Am 25.01.2016 um 16:50 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote:
when being forced by my
customers to use Word.
Would you mind sharing how common this was?
The publishing house I had been working for usually does their
typesetting with InDesign, a
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote:
when being forced by my
customers to use Word.
Would you mind sharing how common this was?
It's very common in the Pathology community. I wrote two book chapters and
published abo
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Klaus-Peter Schrage wrote:
> when being forced by my
> customers to use Word.
Would you mind sharing how common this was?
--
Bernardo Sulzbach
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedo
Am 25.01.2016 um 16:21 schrieb Bernardo Sulzbach:
Just an addition to George's impressive answer: I only tried Word
equations on 2013 (the version) and it was painfully bad, sometimes
blocking the program for as much as two or three seconds when I was
entering a complex fraction.
However, maybe
Just an addition to George's impressive answer: I only tried Word
equations on 2013 (the version) and it was painfully bad, sometimes
blocking the program for as much as two or three seconds when I was
entering a complex fraction.
However, maybe it was just a bad installation or something that got
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 5:44 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:52 +1030, Tim wrote:
> > Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because
> > its
> > ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives?
> >
> > I know that in general use, I fi
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 11:25 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> Let's also remind the average Word user that setting up a working
> copy
> of LaTeX and learning even the basics of the syntax - and what you
> shouldn't do - takes a few extra hours when compared to learning a
> What You See Is What You
Let's also remind the average Word user that setting up a working copy
of LaTeX and learning even the basics of the syntax - and what you
shouldn't do - takes a few extra hours when compared to learning a
What You See Is What You Get like Word.
In defense of Word and Writer (LibreOffice), most pub
On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 13:52 +1030, Tim wrote:
> Just for curiosity's sake, is academias prolific use of it because
> its
> ingrained into them, or does it really outclass the alternatives?
>
> I know that in general use, I find Word horrendous. But I've never
> tried formulae in it, etc., nor use
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
> > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their
> > papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX.
>
> Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined
> i
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:52:05 +1030 Tim wrote:
> Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Patrick O'Callaghan sent:
> > It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell
> > then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing,
> > especially in Maths, Physics
Allegedly, on or about 25 January 2016, Patrick O'Callaghan sent:
> It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell
> then clearly you've not had a lot of contact with academic publishing,
> especially in Maths, Physics or CS, since probably 99% of researchers
> in those fiel
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:10 PM, Ranjan Maitra
wrote:
>
> FWIW, I think that if you read Patrick's complete statement, he is not
> terribly inaccurate: he cites Math, Physics, CS -- to that I would add
> statistics and computational methods/OR. If you look at some of the
> professional societi
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 22:23:47 -0200 Bernardo Sulzbach
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
> > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX
> > or its cousin LaTeX.
>
> Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 22:23 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
> wrote:
> > since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their
> > papers in TeX or its cousin LaTeX.
>
> Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined
> i
On 01/24/2016 12:37 PM, Beartooth wrote:
Is there some reason I don't see to keep this enormous app, or
would I be better off just telling dnf to remove it??
Try removing it with --assumeno to see what else would go away with it.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To un
On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 10:17 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan
wrote:
> since probably 99% of researchers in those fields write their papers in TeX
> or its cousin LaTeX.
Not only this kind of message annoys statistically inclined
individuals, it is wrong by, let me say it, an order of magnitude.
I don'
On Sun, 2016-01-24 at 21:45 +, Beartooth wrote:
> But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain a
> word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if
> any) might call it.
It's the main Linux implementation of TeX. If that doesn't ring a bell
then clearly you
used texlive at all.
But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to contain
a word processor. So I have no way to guess what other software (if any)
might call it.
Just
sudo dnf erase texlive\-*
and see what it offers to take out with it. If you can live without those, then
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:45:36 + Beartooth wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
>
> > Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of
> > using it?
>
> As I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive
On Sun, 24 Jan 2016 18:39:09 -0200, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
> Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of
> using it?
As I said originally, afaik, I have never used texlive at all.
But I have no idea what it does, except that it seems to cont
Do you even use tex? Can you imagine one program that you make use of using it?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
I'm doing dnf upgrade on F23. Like many other times, it's
updating some humongous number of items involving texlive; It must be a
huge program.
Afaik, I have never used texlive at all. Unless some other app
calls it, I seem to be wasting a lot of space -- and maybe e
Hello:
My suggestion is that no matter which distro are using you, install TeXLive
2013 (
http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/133235/installing-tex-live-2013-on-linux)
full or TeXLive 2014 (coming soon) from an iso image from the CTAN (
http://www.ctan.org/tex-archive/systems/texlive/Images
On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 01:04:22 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> ! Package babel Error: Unknown option `french'. Either you misspelled it
> (babel) or the language definition file french.ldf was not
> found
> .
>
> Is it a lyx of a fedora issue?
That question isn't interesting.
More i
> - Original Message -
> From: Ed Greshko
> Sent: 01/26/14 12:49 AM
> To: Community support for Fedora users
> Subject: Re: texlive
>
> On 01/26/14 07:44, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> >
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> It looks like that in the fed
On 01/26/14 07:44, Patrick Dupre wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel
>> the following file:
>> /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/french.ldf
>> has been replaced by:
>> /usr/share/texli
>
> Hello,
>
> It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel
> the following file:
> /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/french.ldf
> has been replaced by:
> /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/francais.ldf
>
> which
Hello,
It looks like that in the fedora20, in the package texlive-babel
the following file:
/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/french.ldf
has been replaced by:
/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/latex/babelbib/francais.ldf
which becomes incompatible with lyx which only manages
On 04/12/2013 11:35 PM, Suvayu Ali wrote:
Hi Rolf,
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:43:50PM +1200, Rolf Turner wrote:
I don't, didn't, never have, and never will use hypdestopt!!! Do you
see any reference to hypdestopt in the "demo" code?
I figured that it had to come from somewhere i
Sorry, I did not mean to send my previous message to the list, since
Joe Zeff had asked to email him off-list. I just clicked on "Reply"
thinking
my message would just go to the sender. (I didn't click on "Reply List"
or "Reply All".) And then I didn't notice that the To field was the list
On 04/13/2013 05:16 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 04/12/2013 03:32 AM, Rolf Turner wrote:
I realized that I should have been doing
ps2pdf demo.ps
not
ps2pdf demo
and *that* was the source of the error that I was getting.
Brain fart. Don't worry about it. Tish happens. If you want to
On 04/12/2013 03:32 AM, Rolf Turner wrote:
I realized that I should have been doing
ps2pdf demo.ps
not
ps2pdf demo
and *that* was the source of the error that I was getting.
Brain fart. Don't worry about it. Tish happens. If you want to know
about one that had me going round i
l latex. Look at the available packages in the main
website.
NOTE: some packages (beamer, pgf, hyperref) and others are currently
unavailable for kerTeX, but can be added later via a package script. See
Packages section in {1}.
{1} http://www.kergis.com/en/kertex.html
Also, you can have te
On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 21:37 +1200, Rolf Turner wrote:
> So I need somehow to get an installation of texlive where "latex" really
> means
> ***latex*** and not "pdftex". How the hell do I arrange that?
>
I'm a bit late to this party, but Jindrich Novy
Hi Rolf,
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:43:50PM +1200, Rolf Turner wrote:
> I don't, didn't, never have, and never will use hypdestopt!!! Do you
> see any reference to hypdestopt in the "demo" code?
>
> I figured that it had to come from somewhere in the bowels of powerdot.
> God know
ftex*. This seems to be
simply what happens under texlive2012.
[...]
So I need somehow to get an installation of texlive where "latex" really
means
***latex*** and not "pdftex". How the hell do I arrange that?
This is intentional. All modern TeX distributions symlink latex,
Further to my previous message: Maybe I *am* a moron and not just
an idiot studying hard to be one. I realized that I should have been doing
ps2pdf demo.ps
not
ps2pdf demo
and *that* was the source of the error that I was getting.
So it all seems to be working now. I guess the pro
he latex command
[...]
> So it seems that I was inadvertently using *pdftex*. This seems to be
> simply what happens under texlive2012.
[...]
> So I need somehow to get an installation of texlive where "latex" really
> means
> ***latex*** and not "pdftex". How the
fTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.4-1.40.13 (TeX Live 2012)
restricted \write18 enabled."
I then did "which latex" and got, as expected (since I'd made the
appropriate
modification to my PATH) /usr/local/texlive /2012/bin/x86_64-linux/latex.
So I looked at /usr/local/texlive /2012/bi
Hi Ed,
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:46:52PM +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> First, I am not a Latex user. But decided to try your demo
> file on an F17 system where I installed using yum... I "think" it
> is OK?
>
> [egreshko@f17x ~]$ latex demo.tex
[...]
I think the OP expected it to work w
On 04/12/13 08:09, Rolf Turner wrote:
> On 04/12/2013 01:12 AM, Mike Williams wrote:
>
>
>
>> The texlive that comes with fedora 17 is texlive 2007, the version from the
>> tug link is texlive 2013. On my system I used yum to remove texlive, then
>> downloaded
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:09:42PM +1200, Rolf Turner wrote:
> >! Package hypdestopt Error: This package requires pdfTeX in PDF mode.
> >
> >See the hypdestopt package documentation for explanation.
> >Type H for immediate help.
> > ...
> >
> >l.55 }\@ehc
> But powerdot is incompatible with pd
Hi,
I installed texlive from the install.sh script. It worked after installing
some perl modules which are easily to discover.
The texlive package manager worked better for me than the fedora
repositories. Especially if you are going to use xelatex which I recommend.
Thomas
2013/4/12 Rolf
On 04/12/2013 01:12 AM, Mike Williams wrote:
The texlive that comes with fedora 17 is texlive 2007, the version
from the tug link is texlive 2013. On my system I used yum to remove
texlive, then downloaded the .iso from tug, mounted the iso, installed
from that and it works fine.
OK. I
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:31:17PM +1200, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
> I'm not completely sure if I installed texlive using yum, or if texlive came
> with the initial install of Fedora 17. My vague recollection is that there
> was
> a latex facility that came with Fedora 17 but it
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:46:15 +0300, Susi Lehtola
wrote:
> Don't install stuff manually when things have already been packages.
> Fedora 18 features a complete TeXLive 2012 distribution; you can also
> get it on Fedora 17 by
Except that I think Fedora installs the versions fro
id of the flakiness
by re-installing texlive.
I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from
Don't install stuff manually when things have already been packages.
Fedora 18 features a complete TeXLive 2012 distribution; you can also
get it on Fedora 17 by
# yum remove tex-* texli
.)
>
> I thought that perhaps I might be able to get rid of the flakiness
> by re-installing texlive.
>
> I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from
>
> http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire.html
>
> unpacked, changed directories appropriately and executed
>
to
>>> switch from Ubuntu to Fedora for reasons that I won't go into here.)
>>>
>>> I thought that perhaps I might be able to get rid of the flakiness
>>> by re-installing texlive.
>>>
>>> I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarbal
I'm not completely sure if I installed texlive using yum, or if texlive came
with the initial install of Fedora 17. My vague recollection is that
there was
a latex facility that came with Fedora 17 but it was incomplete, and that
I did indeed do "yum install texlive" to fix
thought that perhaps I might be able to get rid of the flakiness
> by re-installing texlive.
>
> I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from
>
> http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire.html
>
> unpacked, changed directories appropriately and executed
>
> ./install.t
by re-installing texlive.
I downloaded the install-tl-unx.tar.gz tarball from
http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire.html
unpacked, changed directories appropriately and executed
./install.tl
as per instructions. I got an error message:
Can't locate Digest/MD5.pm in @INC (@INC contains: ./t
rt of TeX/LaTeX.
That is a rather weird statement. ConTeXt is a macro package for TeX
typesetting engines, so I would say LaTeX and ConTeXt are alternate
solutions based on the same core and are both part of the collection of
software often known as TeX and friends. It is also part of the TeXLive
distr
Tethys wrote:
> TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if
> there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to
> critical bug reports.
I use LaTeX and Metafont under Fedora-17 and Fedora-18 quite a lot,
and have had no problems.
> ConTeXt is literally unusab
CTAN, not the Fedora rpms, and everything I use worked
> fine. (I haven't had any problems with the one from the rpms on F18 yet
> either, but ...)
I will second the TeXLive distribution from CTAN. I have been using it
since TeXLive 2010, and it has always behaved reliably. I do not h
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 18:47:52 +, Tethys wrote:
> I tried various
> other options and ended up with ConTeXt, which I'm generally pretty
> happy with. Except that it doesn't work on F17. At all. And yes, I do
> mind migrating. For new projects, it's not so bad. But for already
> published books, i
Well I have been using TeXlive for a long time, and I do it in different
machines and with different OS. But my basic system is Ubuntu LTS, I hate
to change my OS every six months and I prefer something more stables. With
Fedora in the last versions I have few troubles and I use them but they are
On 03/07/2013 01:27 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Not really sure why you're bringing in Adobe. TeX/LaTeX have nothing to
do with PDF (sure, they can optionally generate PDF output, but that's
not the point).
As it happens, the difference has been discussed on the scribus mailing
list, so I'm
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 11:07 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 10:56 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > That might work for some projects, but generally speaking people using
> > TeX/LaTeX are concerned about finer control of typesetting, especially
> > when it comes to mathematical material. T
On 03/07/2013 11:32 AM, Tethys wrote:
If you create a PDF from a given input source, then it goes without
saying that it will only be able to position the characters in the
same position as they are in the input. If the input supports
per-character positioning (as most Adobe products do, FWIW), t
On 03/07/2013 11:59 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> OK, THis is correct,
>
> but
>
> \documentclass[a4paper]{article}
> \usepackage{fourier}
> \begin{document}
> Hello world!
> L'{\'E}l{\'e}phant va {\`a} la mare.
> \[\frac14=0{,}25\]
> \end{document}
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 7:07 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> You may find this interesting, then. PDF files created by Scribus are
> considerably larger than those created by Adobe. This is because Adobe sets
> the position for a line, then inserts a string of characters for that line.
> Scribus sets the
On 03/07/2013 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I installes texlive2012,
> but apparently the fonts are not installed!
> In additon, when I make,
>
> rpm -ql texlive
> I get:
> (contains no files)
>
> while:
> rpm -q texlive
> texlive-2012-16.2
On 03/07/2013 10:56 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
That might work for some projects, but generally speaking people using
TeX/LaTeX are concerned about finer control of typesetting, especially
when it comes to mathematical material. TeX/LaTeX is the gold standard
for this. To paraphrase Brian Ker
On 03/07/2013 10:47 AM, Tethys wrote:
I've been doing this a long time now, and I'm well aware of the
alternatives.
OK, just asking. I've run across any number of people across the years
who learn one way of doing something and keep doing it that way long
after there's a better way simply be
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 10:40 -0800, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 03/07/2013 05:34 AM, Tethys wrote:
> > TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if
> > there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to
> > critical bug reports. ConTeXt is literally unusable out of the bo
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> There are other FOSS options for this, you know. If you don't mind
> migrating from a markup language to a GUI, you might consider Scribus. I've
> had good luck with it on small projects, and I know that there are
> professionals out there using
On 03/07/2013 05:34 AM, Tethys wrote:
TeX under Fedora is frankly a joke these days :-( I don't know if
there's currently a maintainer. Certainly no one's responding to
critical bug reports. ConTeXt is literally unusable out of the box (as
in, it doesn't run at all), which make typesetting my boo
On Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:34:48 + Tethys wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre
> wrote:
>
> > I installes texlive2012,
> > but apparently the fonts are not installed!
> > In additon, when I make,
> >
> > rpm -ql texlive
> >
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Patrick Dupre
wrote:
> I installes texlive2012,
> but apparently the fonts are not installed!
> In additon, when I make,
>
> rpm -ql texlive
> I get:
> (contains no files)
>
> while:
> rpm -q texlive
> texlive-2012-16.2013020
On Thu, 2013-03-07 at 12:59 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote:
> >>
> >> I installes texlive2012,
> >> but apparently the fonts are not installed!
> >> In additon, when I make,
> >>
> >> rpm -ql texlive
> >> I get:
> >> (c
Am 07.03.2013 12:59, schrieb Patrick Dupre:
>
>>>
>>> I installes texlive2012,
>>> but apparently the fonts are not installed!
>>> In additon, when I make,
>>>
>>> rpm -ql texlive
>>> I get:
>>> (contains no files)
I installes texlive2012,
but apparently the fonts are not installed!
In additon, when I make,
rpm -ql texlive
I get:
(contains no files)
while:
rpm -q texlive
texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64
Whould I finish the install manually?
[root@rh:~]$ yum search texlive fonts
Am 07.03.2013 12:32, schrieb Patrick Dupre:
> Hello,
>
> I installes texlive2012,
> but apparently the fonts are not installed!
> In additon, when I make,
>
> rpm -ql texlive
> I get:
> (contains no files)
>
> while:
> rpm -q texlive
> texlive-2012-16.20
Hello,
I installes texlive2012,
but apparently the fonts are not installed!
In additon, when I make,
rpm -ql texlive
I get:
(contains no files)
while:
rpm -q texlive
texlive-2012-16.20130205_r29034.fc18.x86_64
Whould I finish the install manually?
Thank
> FWIW, I got around the error you reported by doing the following
> over-kill.
>
> yum install texlive*font*
Thanks.
In fact it comes with texlive-times.
In my real document, I also needed:
texlive-vmargin
texlive-fancyhdr
texlive-marvosym
texlive-helvetic
texlive-pst-tools
te
On 01/19/2013 04:43 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Do you have texlive-texmf-fonts installed?
FWIW, I got around the error you reported by doing the following over-kill.
yum install texlive*font*
--
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger
and better id
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901394
>
> Does anyone know a work around? It seems that texlive packages have
> changed from F17 to F18.
>
> Frédéric
Do you have texlive-texmf-fonts installed?
--
Programming today is a race between software engineers striving t
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
