← Back to team overview

ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive

Upstream vs packaged texlive


My (very limited!) experience is that using Raring-packaged texlive
works, for a definition of "works" that just means it creates an English
language PDF file that is viewable in evince and which "looks right"
when so viewed for a minute or two.

Why does the Ubuntu Manual team currently recommend using unpackaged
texlive instead?  Are there tests for the build system that fail when
using Raring-packaged texlive but succeed when using the unpackaged version?

Is there a better test suite than "run make and see if the resulting PDF
looks OK", which I should be using?



Follow ups