[XeTeX] How to manually create the xelatex.fmt?

[Petr Tomasek]

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 09:53:48AM +0200, Ulrike Fischer wrote:
> Am Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:39:06 -0700 schrieb Chris Travers:
> 
> >> So the limit is five years (but only for the latex kernel).
> >> The version date of my (current) latex.ltx ist
> >> \edef\fmtversion{2011/06/27}
> 
> >>> Or is XeTeX not intended to be used in these environments?
> 
> >> I would say that if your latex is more than five years old, your
> >> xetex binaries and packages aren't up-to-date either. And as xetex
> >> is rather young this can be quite a problem. Regardless if you want
> >> to ship out only xetex documents or xetex documents + binaries: You
> >> should be aware that other people can have up-to-date systems and so
> >> you should make tests on such systems too (and just in case you
> >> don't know:  you can't use a fmt generated by one xetex version with
> >> another xetex version).
> 
> > Of course.  I don't expect .fmt files to be portable.  What is helpful
> > is to know how to resolve the issue so I can put a faq entry in and
> > direct people to it when they ask on the mailing list.  (And if they
> > can't get it, charge for support.)  I believe I have gotten that, so I
> > am satisfied with the resolution.
> > 
> > However, so that there are no misunderstandings....   The issue here
> > is being forced to choose between supporting XeTeX on many platforms
> > and being able to support the platform's package manager.  I don't see
> > anyone here suggesting a way around that.  For developers distributing
> > software, that's kind of an issue.
> 
> The problem is that there seems to a mounting number on Linux users
> which are reluctant to install software without using there package
> manager. And there seems to be a mounting number of  maintainers of
> linux distros (there just was a quite heated discussion in d.c.t.t.)
> which enforce this reluctance by telling people that they set their
> system at risk if they install e.g. a new TeXLive without using the
> disto package manager. 

And they are obviously right.

> 
> On the other side the linux distros seems to be either unwilling or
> unable to update the packages they support. Your list is quite
> impressing in this respect:
> 
>  
> > Debian Lenny:  TexLive 2007
> > Debian Squeeze:  TexLive 2009
> > Debian Sid:  TexLive 2009
> > Ubuntu 10.04 LTS:  TexLive 2009
> > Red Hat Enterprise 6:  TexLive 2007
> > That means that the most recent versions of CentOS and Scientific
> > Linux also use 2007.
> 
> This is all (partly horribly) outdated. The current TeXLive version
> is 2011 and they are currently working on 2012. 

Maybe the problem is that the packages of TeX-Live are not easily upgradable...

> As the maintainer of the KOMA-packages pointed out this makes
> support rather difficult: He constantly gets reports about bugs
> which have been resolved years ago. 
> 
> What would you think of a linux distro which would force you to use
> a virus protection software with signature files five years old? 

Hm, and I thought than prof. Knuth wanted TeX to be as stable as possible
and not be subject to exactly such problems...

(BTW, that's one of the reasons, I only use plan-TeX/XeTeX...)

-- 
Petr Tomasek <http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~tomasek>
Jabber: butrus at jabbim.cz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EA 355:001  DU DU DU DU
EA 355:002  TU TU TU TU
EA 355:003  NU NU NU NU NU NU NU
EA 355:004  NA NA NA NA NA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~