[OS X TeX] TeXShop-2.10beta
Gerben.Wierda at rna.nl
Tue Jun 6 08:55:31 CEST 2006
On Jun 6, 2006, at 03:35, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2006, at 14:02, Gerben Wierda wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 2006, at 13:35, Maarten Sneep wrote:
>>> On 5 Jun 2006, at 11:57, Peter Dyballa wrote:
>>>> Am 05.06.2006 um 01:22 schrieb Richard Koch:
>>>>> A beta release of TeXShop 2.10 can be obtained at
>>>> The engines can be made 'universal' by letting them invoke
>>>> /usr/local/teTeX/bin/`uname -p`-apple-darwin-current/<utility> or
>>>> by extending the search path with /usr/local/teTeX/bin/`uname
>>> Somehow, I think these instructions to build a fat^H^H^HUniversal
>>> binary will give a more user friendly experience.
>>> From what I can see: all Jonathan has to do is
>>> lipo -arch i386 /usr/local/teTeX/bin/i386-apple-darwin-current/xetex
>>> -arch ppc
>>> /usr/local/teTeX/bin/powerpc-apple-darwin-current/xetex \
>>> -create -output xetex
>>> to create a new fat binary.
>>> Now, it seems that gwTeX uses separate binaries at the moment, and
>>> simply adds the correct architecture to the path, rather than
>>> letting the OS figure things out at run-time.
>> I follow TeX Live standards. I could produce fat binaries for TeX of
>> course, but that would remove the choice for downloading only one
>> architecture (in expert mode of the TeX i-package)
> What is the approximate size difference between universal binary and
> single architecture? Presumably people aren't using gwTeX on a server
> that also has binaries for non-Apple systems (isn't that the point of
> the arch-specific path?).
Size of a ppc+x386 binary is roughly double the size of either (x86
used to be somewhat larger in the past, I haven't checked recently)
>>> I don't know how the rest of TeX is handled (in TeXShop), but it
>>> seems to me that XeTeX and gwTeX should be treated as similarly as
>>> possible. A loger term solution that I can see is to (eventually)
>>> create a universal set of tools.
>> It is a difficult problem. Having universal binaries is easier for
>> Dick but removes the download-only-what-you-need option.
>> What is the community's opinion?
> I'd go with what's easiest for you, but I think the universal approach
> is less hassle for users, and more likely to be robust (say if you're
> copying preference files between machines). Of course, you'll never
> get a really Mac-like ease of use from something with as many arcane
> path and environment settings as TeX...
> ------------------------- 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/
------------------------- 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