X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <20051207163721.64231.qmail@web51505.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:37:21 -0800 (PST) From: "James R. Phillips" Reply-To: antiskid56-cygwin AT yahoo DOT com Subject: Re: octave-forge dependency? To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Chris Taylor wrote: >...the OP _doesn't_ want his configure scripts picking up tetex... This is what the OP said: "If I don't put miktex in the front of my path, then the configury stuff is happy (finds tetex, uses tetex), but *I'm* not happy because *I* want to call miktex binaries from my cygwin interactive shell." I believe a reasonable interpretation of this is that he generally doesn't mind if packages configure to use tetex and even use tetex, as long as he gets miktex by default from the command line. This is the situation my solution is designed to address. If, as you claim, he _cannot_ have packages configure to use tetex, then I admit my solution does not work. -- 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/