Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/05/14/07:36:42
Hi Andreas,
glad to hear that you managed to get the latest passivetex alive &
kickin on cygwin. Just for completeness, here are the answers to your
questions:
Andreas schrieb:
>
> Hmmm, sounds good, I guess /bin/fmtutil needs to be patched, right? There
> are other files related to fmtutil.cnf:
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf.cygwin-dist
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf.cygwin-orig
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf.orig
Actually, the file's name is fmtutil.cnf, but Windows strangely doesn't
give you its extension. Leave the other ones alone. They are not used.
> Letīs assume that I found the lines that needs a fix and put this in
> DocbookCygwinFmtutil.diff, does a simple
> patch -N -u /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf DocbookCygwinFmtutil.diff
> would be sufficient or should I rerun your script (further dependencies in
> the process of buliding the passivetex stuff?)?
You have to call
mktexlsr
texconfig confall
texconfig rehash
texconfig init
after patching, otherwise your modifications won't be reflected in tex's
configuration tables.
> Would a second, third,... run of your install script potentially break
> things that were created at the first run?
No, if patch (the executable) realizes that a patch has already been
applied, it ignores it. You can safely rerun a patch.
[snip]
> I just converted the fo file into pdf using fop and it is nicely formatted.
My impression based on the feedback on the docbook-apps mailing list is
that fop gets more development than passivetex. But I could be
completely wrong about this. I haven't done any serious pdf generation.
I had just set up the docbook pdf toolchain once and gave it a couple of
tests. Which one (fop/passivetex) gives you the better results?
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -