[tex-live] script for LuaTeX font database updating
t34www at googlemail.com
Fri Feb 26 12:32:26 CET 2010
On 26 February 2010 04:27, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:44:52PM +0000, T T wrote:
>> On 25 February 2010 23:10, Khaled Hosny <khaledhosny at eglug.org> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:03:01AM +0100, Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
>> >> On 26 February 2010 Khaled Hosny wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > I consider a "different behaviour based on executable name" a wrong
>> >> > design decision and hence, IMHO, a mistake.
>> >> Then good luck with something like
>> >> dos2unix --unix2dos
>> > $ iconv -f "windows-1256" -t "utf-8"
>> > (Just an example of how executable name "hack" is very limited compared
>> > to standard practices).
>> Following this reasoning further we should use:
>> pdftex -fmt=latex ...
> Yes, I do actually propose that (and ConTeXt has been doing this for
> ages), I for example strongly disliked the idea of having separate
> luatex/lualatex binaries just to change the output format, to me this is
> plain stupidity, but whom I to complain, younger than TeX being I.
I think your age has nothing to do with your arguments. I'm rather a
newcomer to TeX myself and have fairly radical views on some aspects
of TeX ecosystem but I simply don't find your arguments (or the lack
If tex engines wouldn't act on argv then we would soon enough have
wrapper scripts/programs for the same purpose (and ConTeXt too comes
with a fair share of those). Your example with inconv is really
ill-contrived -- the main reason to introduce command shortcuts (and
argv trick is just that) is convenience, not flexibility. It is
easier for people to associate a particular name with a particular
piece of functionality than to remember the right combination of often
cryptic switches of a general tool. I sure find it easier to use
ps2pdf than directly call gs with all the switches required (which I
don't remember anyway).
More information about the tex-live