← Back to team overview

ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive

Re: Upstream vs packaged texlive



On Mon, Jun 10, 2013, at 04:22 AM, Patrick Dickey wrote:

> Well the nice thing about all of this is, if you create the script for
> the lubuntu manual, and the packaged version of texlive works for
> compiling the ubuntu-manual, then it would be minor changes to make
> your script work for ubuntu as well.

Other way around.  It now works for Ubuntu Manual in either Lubuntu
or Ubuntu.  I only just created an (empty) bzr branch for the
proposed lubuntu manual, so there is no script that sets things up
for working that yet :)

> I have a script (if you search the archives) that runs through the
> entire process also.

Interesting... why wasn't it promoted on the web pages of ubuntu-
manual.org as the easy way to get started in the project?  I had no idea
I was re-inventing the wheel here!

> Of course on the flip side of that coin, your script might work better
> than mine (even for people installing the upstream version). So, I'd
> be interested in seeing your script as well.

It's checked in to the Ubuntu Manual repository in the pkgs/
subdirectory.  Update your local branch and you will see it.  Take a
look :)

> In the interest of full disclosure, I do my writing for the Ubuntu
> Manual on a Lubuntu desktop, and create my screenshots or whatever on
> my laptop--which runs whatever version of ubuntu we're writing for.
> So, I can tell you that the instructions on the site do work for
> Lubuntu users as well as Ubuntu users.

Sure.  But they are longer than I'd like, and use unpackaged software so
users need to know and remember a "special" way to update that software,
which in practice many will forget.

I plan to test creation of each translated manual using the packaged
texlive in Raring.  If that works, I'll advocate strongly for the
manual.org site being changed to document using those packages rather
than the upstream unpackaged texlive.

  Jonathan Marsden

Follow ups