additional texmf tree for all users (was Re: [OS X TeX] Beginner help with TeXshop/MacTex needed)
vivrii at gmail.com
Mon Aug 28 01:03:40 CEST 2006
On 8/27/06, Gerben Wierda <Gerben.Wierda at rna.nl> wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2006, at 12:02 , Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > My reasons are very straightforward, very
> > clear, and I'm amazed that so many people have such difficulty
> > understanding that it's much easier to manage your own additions when
> > they're in a single, segregated directory tree.
> I agree that that is a good idea and it may be confusing that some i-
> Packages write their TeX additions in texmf.local (like the ConTeXt
> updater). That way, texmf.local is not really your *personal* system-
> wide tree anymore.
And mpm marauders here as well (I prefer it over manual as well).
There are differences how they operate. Let us note that i-installer
ask you about each package [but it could be confusing: package in ii
could contain more than one LaTeX packages, and binaries, and TeX
helpers and anything while mpm is strictly LaTeX package installer].
I am slightly annoyed be ii asking me password for each package;
however this ensures that the user would not cry: why ii installed
this? Yes I pressed "overwrite" but you should be more specific :-)
> The situation grew like this because the philosophy of i-Installer is
> that it replaces handwork you might have to do yourself. E.g. if you
> download ConTeXt from pragma in the zip form and have to install it
> in the system wide texmf.local tree. The ConTeXt updater i-Package is
> just a convenient way of doing that. Still, peopl tend to see
> something like i-Installer as a closed system and as such it should
> leave anything alone it does not own. i-Installer instead thinks of
> your system dirctories as not being exlusively owned, but as
> something many programs (installers, or even handwork from sources)
> may work upon.
> I have been thinking in having another texmf tree which in prcedence
> lies between texmf.gwtex and texmf.local (texmf.gwextra), but given
> that I have to reorganize everything because teTeX as a separate
> distribution is dead, I have put that off. Still, I think the next
> reorg will make sure that texmf.local is *really* local.
This would be nice;
Victor Ivrii, Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto
------------------------- Info --------------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
& FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/
More information about the macostex-archives