ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive

[Patrick Dickey <pdickeybeta@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm not sure if I'll be at the meeting, but this could be something that
should be brought up there. If the majority of the authors/editors have
installed the Debian/Ubuntu packages, we'll need to keep the workaround.
If not, then we can go either way.  Of course, if Kevin answers that the
manual isn't up to par with the Debian/Ubuntu packages, then it's a moot
point.

Have a great day.:)
Patrick.

On Sat, 2013-06-29 at 03:03 -0700, Jonathan Marsden wrote: 
> On 06/29/2013 02:52 AM, Kevin Godby wrote:
> 
> > It looks like the glossaries package provided by upstream TeX Live has
> > been updated and the PDF compiles just fine without the workaround.
> > 
> > So now we have to make a decision:
> > 
> > 1. Leave the workaround in place until the Ubuntu/Debian packages get
> > updated (or until their tlmgr works).
> > 
> > 2. Ditch the Ubuntu/Debian packages and use upstream TeX Live.
> 
> Is there a downside to (1) ?  Are the resulting PDFs uglier or in any
> sense "worse" than the ones made without the workaround?
> 
> If the Debian packagers of TexLive are on the ball, and repackage the
> newest TeX Live in the next few months, their work will be synced
> automatically into Saucy, so no problem anyway :)
> 
> I'm biased towards continuing to allow package use, since it is what we
> told our Lubuntu folks to do, as well as my personal preference in
> general for software management on Debian/Ubuntu machines.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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