Skip to content

In which I learn things about TeX

Apparently a local texmf tree no longer requires the ls-R file. Since how long, I know not, nor care I particularly. Nor expect I you to care, particularly, but I was tickled by it. Yet another piece of obscurity and complication getting slightly simpler in the LaTeX world.

(Thanks to Micha — I discovered this while helping him tidy up his texmf tree. And yes, I guess this is less down to (La)TeX and more down to my distribution, details jargon technicalities disclaimer.)

This was written by tikitu. Posted on Monday, April 27, 2009, at 3:26 pm. Tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

6 Comments

  1. Robin wrote:

    Hmm. Last I looked, things were saying ‘It’s not needed, but you can put it there to make scanning faster.’

    Monday, April 27, 2009 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
  2. tikitu wrote:

    Probably true. But (a) if you’re using TikZ, scanning for packages is not your bottleneck, and (b) if it is there you have to keep it up to date.

    Monday, April 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm | Permalink
  3. S. glaber wrote:

    Ah, come over to ConTeXt already. I only realized yesterday (though I assume you noticed when you had a look at it) that it has full user interfaces in Dutch and German, so you can do stuff like

    \doornummeren[Vraag][plaats=inmarge]
\gebruikexternfiguur[Logo][FIG-0001][breedte=4em]
\definieerkop[Rubriek][paragraaf]
\stelkopin[Rubriek][letter=schuin]

    Nice. Well, it would be if I spoke Dutch.

    Wednesday, April 29, 2009 at 11:02 pm | Permalink
  4. tikitu wrote:

    I don’t want to do things like that.

    The Rant Against ConTeXt is a rant for another day. Short version: as of last time I checked (about a year ago I think) you have to understand it at all levels simultaneously to use it. I’d be reluctant to invest that heavily at the best of times, and frantically dissertating is not the best of times.

    Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 12:08 pm | Permalink
  5. S. glaber wrote:
    you have to understand it at all levels simultaneously to use it

    Well, I produced my first non-trivial document with it last week. Either I managed to understand it simultaneously at all levels in about two days, or such understanding is not really required. The simplest ConTeXt document is

    \starttext
ConTeXt fanboy? Moi?
\stoptext

    which requires very little understanding.

    So I’ll assume that’s not really what you meant, and join you in your wise postponement of this argument to another day: specifically, a day subsequent to both our handing-in dates. (By which time LaTeX 3, BibTeX 1.0, and Nonpareil will probably be out, ho ho.)

    Thursday, April 30, 2009 at 11:50 pm | Permalink
  6. tikitu wrote:

    You said “non-trivial”, so I’ll cut you some slack.

    LaTeX 3: seems to me to be focused on people who write packages. Which is all well and good, but … not very helpful for those of us who want to use the packages, unless they get written.

    BibTeX 1.0: will never arrive. And is to some extent superceded by biblatex anyway, although that may stay at v.0.8 forever…

    Nonpareil: LuaTeX looks fun. To be honest I’m losing faith in open-source enthusiast-driven development, but that might be just pre-dissertatory depression setting in.

    Friday, May 1, 2009 at 12:27 am | Permalink