[OS X TeX] security issue?

Joseph C. Slater PE, PhD joseph.slater at wright.edu
Wed Aug 6 23:48:55 CEST 2008

On Aug 6, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Victor Ivrii wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Peter Dyballa <Peter_Dyballa at web.de>  
> wrote:
>> I don't see much sense in uploading executables – there exist links  
>> (URLs)
>> in Internet.
> The question is about compiled binaries. Some software say on
> SourceForge exist as the source (or there could be found binaries but
> not for MacOS). Not everyone has installed developer tools (even if
> IMHO every serious user must). Sometimes one can find obsolete
> binaries (say gnuplot 4.0 while 4.2.3 is far superior). Should we
> upload such binaries?

No. I think that only binaries that should be uploaded are those on  
the TeX on MacOS X site as it stands today. The only reason for that  
is to enable a quick transition. Ideally, they would all be forced to  
move to CTAN, etc, but we don't want them unavailable until then.

> So far I took conservative path: xpdf because in almost never compiles
> on Mac properly (cannot find freetype2) but I managed.

I would not support posting this. xpdf  can easily be installed via  
fink, macports, or i-Installer (I believe). A binary should be posted  
elsewhere, perhaps CTAN, but I mostly agree with those against posting  

> Probably we need a certain common decision. Definitely binaries which
> are difficult to compile (lets forget about MacPorts or Fink

Why? Any person who would use xpdf in place of Skim should be more  
than happy to install fink or macports. There are plenty of native,  
and better, PDF viewer on MacOS X.

> ) should
> be uploaded xpdf. Definitely up-to-date binaries which could be easily
> found
> should not be. But there is a gray zone of binaries which are easy to
> compile but one cannot find them easily and here some common policy
> required.

I stand by my view that we don't want to become also a repository for  


More information about the macostex-archives mailing list