[texworks] inconsistens because of help-files?
Paul A Norman
paul.a.norman at gmail.com
Sun Aug 21 03:28:21 CEST 2011
Any way Christian,
I'm Still not sure what your expectation was with ...
>"I need to see everytime(!) a absolute actual and correct
Output without ? or old section names."
On 21 August 2011 13:04, Herbert Schulz <herbs at wideopenwest.com> wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2011, at 6:36 PM, sigmundv at gmail.com wrote:
> > Furthermore, LaTeX writes a hint to the log file telling you whether
> >> an additional run is needed. It makes sense to evaluate this hint.
> >> This can be done in Perl without much effort. I'm looking forward to
> >> see this implemented in an MS-DOG batch file.
> And that's the difference between latexmk and make. The latexmk program
> does evaluate the log file as well as seeing if the files have changed (via
> md5 sums). it even determines if you are using the biblatex package and the
> biber back-end and runs the appropriate bibliography back-end.
> Like I've said, I'm using a Mac and have written configuration (rc) files
> for latexmk for use directly with TeXShop that take the use of the
> glossaries and other special needs packages into account. I've set up
> TeXworks to use those same ``engines/tools'' and other *nix systems could
> use many of them with little change but I know that Windows will require
> some adaptation. If you want to take a look at them you can download
> Latexmk426TeXshop.zip from <http://public.me.com/herbs2>. Sorry, I know
> nothing about Windows and how it works so I can't help to adapt the
> ``engines/tools'' for use on that OS.
> PS: I have nothing to do with latexmk directly but I am a happy user and I
> have been in contact with John Collins, the maintainer, over the years and
> have sent in bug reports and praise.
> Good Luck,
> Herb Schulz
> (herbs at wideopenwest dot com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the texworks