ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Upstream vs packaged texlive
I'm sure Kevin or Hannie will reply to this also, but here's my .02
worth. Awhile back, the packaged version was limited and behind
compared to the upstream version. Plus we also make in different
languages, so I'm not sure how well the packaged version fares with
Whether that's still the case or not, I'm not sure. I think the most
recent attempt at using the packaged version (before your attempts now)
was in Oneric or Precise, and it still had issues. I would say that if
the packaged version works as well as the upstream version, then people
can use it (especially those who are bandwidth limited). Otherwise you
should stick with the upstream one. After the initial installation, the
upstream one shouldn't require a lot of bandwidth to keep updated.
And I would say that unless you're doing a clean install of Ubuntu, if
you already have the upstream one installed, stick with it. No sense in
removing something that works to replace it with the packaged version of
the same thing (which works too).
Have a great day.:)
On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 20:54 -0700, Jonathan Marsden wrote:
> 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?
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual
> Post to : ubuntu-manual@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp