[OS X TeX] 64-bit binaries in TeXLive 2010
Adam R. Maxwell
amaxwell at mac.com
Sat Dec 5 19:07:15 CET 2009
On Dec 5, 2009, at 7:19 AM, Herbert Schulz wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Alain Schremmer wrote:
>> 1) Being behind does not mean being lost. I am still using GWTeX. And if, for some reason, I couldn't anymore, I could always upgrade to TeXLive2008 which, I assume is still going to be available.
> If you were to update why would you go to TeX Live 2008 instead of 2009? There will be no more updates to 2008 while 2009 will have a year of easy updates to fix bugs, etc. Hmmm... you would have to update your OS to 10.5.8 so that TeX Live Utility (TLU) can easily do its update job; I know you're Terminal phobic so dealing with tlmgr directly wouldn't work.
Yeah, what Herb said. In addition, AFAIK you can't download MacTeX 2008 anymore, much less TL 2008. Both are gone, unless you have DVD media or an old copy...but the DVD will still only be current as of August 2008.
>> 2) The issue, I think, is whether or not the new features should be made available on older systems and given 1), I really do not see why as it is then the user's choice: to stay with what s/he has or to pay the price for availing her/himself with the new improved.
> Many of the new features are available as individual packages that you must manually install. Sometimes package interdependence means you must update a set of packages and that isn't always obvious until you try to use them. It's much nicer to just use TLU!
Part of the reason I'm a big fan of tlmgr is that I tried to wedge a new hyperref into gwTeX, since I needed it for compatibility with a certain document class. The dependencies on that were /not/ fun to resolve manually; IIRC it took the better part of an afternoon, and was really frustrating on a deadline.
>>> This just pushes the question back to the developer tools and compilers, etc. Why should *they* move ahead in a manner that makes the software developed with them
>> obsolete? If so, because it makes for sales, and, in the case of free software, because, like the Everest, it is there.
> Given that folks putting together the ``free'' software have no profit motive it usually means that there are feature changes and/or bug fixes if they put in the time to issue an update. It also isn't always obvious that there was a problem unless you run into it directly; that doesn't mean it won't bite you in the future.
You're both right, I think. Ideally, there would be worthwhile features or bug fixes…but I've seen a fair amount of open source development changes made for no apparent reason. Without pointing at any project in particular, rewriting existing code to fit the random design whim of the day often introduces a slew of new bugs, and is very annoying to everyone but the developer :).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 2415 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the macostex-archives