[XeTeX] How to manually create the xelatex.fmt?

[Chris Travers]

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Ulrike Fischer <news3 at nililand.de> wrote:

>
> So the limit is five years (but only for the latex kernel).
> The version date of my (current) latex.ltx ist
> \edef\fmtversion{2011/06/27}
>
>> Or is XeTeX not intended to be used in these environments?
>
> I would say that if your latex is more than five years old, your
> xetex binaries and packages aren't up-to-date either. And as xetex
> is rather young this can be quite a problem. Regardless if you want
> to ship out only xetex documents or xetex documents + binaries: You
> should be aware that other people can have up-to-date systems and so
> you should make tests on such systems too (and just in case you
> don't know:  you can't use a fmt generated by one xetex version with
> another xetex version).

Of course.  I don't expect .fmt files to be portable.  What is helpful
is to know how to resolve the issue so I can put a faq entry in and
direct people to it when they ask on the mailing list.  (And if they
can't get it, charge for support.)  I believe I have gotten that, so I
am satisfied with the resolution.

However, so that there are no misunderstandings....   The issue here
is being forced to choose between supporting XeTeX on many platforms
and being able to support the platform's package manager.  I don't see
anyone here suggesting a way around that.  For developers distributing
software, that's kind of an issue.

Here's a breakdown of OS support for TexLive versions for anyone interested:

Debian Lenny:  TexLive 2007
Debian Squeeze:  TexLive 2009
Debian Sid:  TexLive 2009
Ubuntu 10.04 LTS:  TexLive 2009
Red Hat Enterprise 6:  TexLive 2007
That means that the most recent versions of CentOS and Scientific
Linux also use 2007.

To be clear, I am not saying every issue has to be resolved.  And I
did get enough info to solve my problem off this list (and for that I
am grateful).  I am however saying that some comments on this list
seem more aimed at end users than folks trying to build tools which
integrate with a TeX environment.

However, the software project has contributors on both TexLive 2007
and 2009, and so our coverage in terms of testing is pretty good
there.

I also understand George's point that ensuring backwards compatibility
isn't always either desirable or possible.  I am not asking for that
either.  Quite frankly if I can get documentation about what needs to
change for documents to render I can supply alternate copies of
templates, avoid trouble spots, etc......  I also understand that
these things are usually most unstable for young software.  My own
package, LedgerSMB, is going through similar issues.  I don't know
anyone that ensures absolute backwards compatibility.  That way
madness lies-- it locks you into bad decisions that you make before
the full scope of the problem becomes known.

I am not asking for any of that.  However, this argument is going on
because I was told that upgrading was the solution, I said it wasn't a
possibility for me and outlined why, and folks decided to push the
issue.  What I don't understand is what is to be gained by pushing the
issue.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers