Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/11/11/05:16:10.2
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, RJ vd Boon wrote:
> You also said in your previous reply that I should add my new tree to
> the TEXMF variable (which I just deleted from djgpp.env, according to
> the readme) or add it to TEXMFLOCAL. That's what I wanted in the
> README, but as I now think, it also is/should be described in the
> docs, so the readme isn't exactly the place to put it.
Yes. The README only tells how to set up the default installation, it
cannot be a substitute for the docs, particularly in this case, where
the amount of different environment variables and options is really
mind-boggling.
The best place to look for environment variables and their docs is in
the TEXMF/web2c/texmf.cnf file.
> So if I understand right, it doesn't help setting the RO-bit for some
> unzippers and for others it does. This creates (IMHO) an inconsistent
> situation between different users, and even for a user[1] who
> sometimes unzips in a DOS-box (with infozip), sometimes with wincmd,
> and sometimes from nortoncommander, which give different situations,
> which I think was never your intention.
I tried several unzippers, and all of them didn't restore the
read-only bit on directories (my version of Unzip is rather old). So
I assumed most of the people won't get it restored, and documented
that situation.
The directories are zipped with that bit because that's how they are
on my system.
I guess I could have done it in a more consistent way, either by
resetting the attribute before preparing the zip archives, or by
explaining some more about this in the README.
The thing is, I got very anxious to put this project out the door,
since it took such a long time (almost a year, including a long
pretest of Web2c 7.2 and a rather long break between last March and
now, due to other projects that took precedence).
> PS I also noticed that you have ported dviljk-2.6 and not 2.8. I also
> noticed that 2.8 is mainly 2.6 + a little bugfix in tfm.c + DJGPP
> support-files. Wouldn't it be wise to use 2.8 with DJGPP?
I worked on whatever the Web2c team worked at the time, because I
wanted to be in sync with them. It is possible that since 7.2 was
released for Unix (last March), dviljk 2.8 appeared, which I didn't
know about. I did look at the latest Texk distribution and ran diff
against the sources I had; all significant changes were put into the
port.
> Or should I just compile and try it myself (and upload if stable)?
This is always a good idea. Please go ahead.
- Raw text -