still no emacs 22 nor texlive in current - Slackware

This is a discussion on still no emacs 22 nor texlive in current - Slackware ; Two Ravens : > Handover Phist wrote: > >> I took your reply as a continuation of the joke after reading it a >> second time . > > Its very kind of you to say so, but as I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: still no emacs 22 nor texlive in current

  1. Re: still no emacs 22 nor texlive in current

    Two Ravens :
    > Handover Phist wrote:
    >
    >> I took your reply as a continuation of the joke after reading it a
    >> second time .

    >
    > Its very kind of you to say so, but as I said "my attempts at humour are
    > somewhat leaden", otherwise it wouldn't have needed to be read twice.


    Humour is a complex thing. Having to read it twice just means I didn't
    get it the first time.

    Anyone can get a 'Yo Momma' joke.

    --
    "Being disintegrated makes me ve-ry an-gry!"

    www.websterscafe.com

  2. Re: still no emacs 22 nor texlive in current

    On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:13:27 +0000, Glyn Millington wrote:

    > notbob writes:


    >> Screw a buncha tetex. What I want 22 for is, it supposedly has an su
    >> command ....mule, dung, somthing like that..... which lets you
    >> view/edit root files without having to start emacs as root. Also, I
    >> understand it also adds dc to the mix. But then, I'm way behind in my
    >> emacs practice. Feel free to flog me about the head and shoulders for
    >> my inaccuracies.

    >
    > What you want is Tramp!!
    >
    >
    > http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/TrampMode


    Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen tramp before.

    And for other stuff in the thread, I heard an interview with PV last year
    and he is a vi user, (though I don't know if that would influence his
    decision making regarding emacs).

    Best

    Paul

  3. Re: still no emacs 22 nor texlive in current

    Christopher Pinon wrote (Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:03:59 +0000):

    >
    > Frankly, I don't see why Slackware should include a TeX/LaTeX
    > installation any more or less than it should include OpenOffice.org.


    Frankly, I don't see why Slackware should include _anything_ (according
    to your reasoning). LaTex has been an integral part of linux distros for
    a long time, and is used by a huge percentage of linux (and windows also)
    users - even if you are not aware of that.

    The choice of a distro also includes how much hassle you have afterwards
    to include the stuff you like. And for a rather traditionalist distro,
    latex is a must (in my opinion).

    I don't use apache for example. Would I advocate, therefore, to leave out
    apache from slackware?

    Have a nice day

    Franz

  4. Re: still no emacs 22 nor texlive in current

    Mr Paul writes:

    > On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:13:27 +0000, Glyn Millington wrote:
    >
    >> notbob writes:

    >
    >>> Screw a buncha tetex. What I want 22 for is, it supposedly has an su
    >>> command ....mule, dung, somthing like that..... which lets you
    >>> view/edit root files without having to start emacs as root. Also, I
    >>> understand it also adds dc to the mix. But then, I'm way behind in my
    >>> emacs practice. Feel free to flog me about the head and shoulders for
    >>> my inaccuracies.

    >>
    >> What you want is Tramp!!
    >>
    >>
    >> http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/TrampMode

    >
    > Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen tramp before.


    It's really useful! One more reason not to leave Emacs :-)


    > And for other stuff in the thread, I heard an interview with PV last year
    > and he is a vi user, (though I don't know if that would influence his
    > decision making regarding emacs).


    Well, if memory serves he just missed the Emacs 22 release with Slackware
    12.

    It is really easy to make a Slackware package *purely* for home
    consumption. I have a "slack" directory which I use for such exercises.



    Undo the source package then

    ,----
    | cd emacs.x.y.z.
    |
    | ./configure (with any options)
    | make
    | su -c 'make prefix=/home/glyn/slack/root/usr/local install'
    |
    | you will be asked for the root passsword and emacs will then be installed
    |
    |
    | cd /home/glyn/slack/root
    |
    | AS ROOT do
    |
    | makepkg Emacs-22.0.0-i686.tgz
    |
    | you will end up with a package in that directory which you can install
    | with installpkg
    `----



    hth



    Glyn
    --
    RTFM http://www.tldp.org/index.html
    GAFC http://slackbook.org/ The Official Source :-)
    STFW http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...inux.slackware
    JFGI http://jfgi.us/

  5. Re: still no emacs 22 nor texlive in current

    On 2008-02-08, Franz Sauerzopf wrote:
    > Christopher Pinon wrote (Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:03:59 +0000):
    >
    >>
    >> Frankly, I don't see why Slackware should include a TeX/LaTeX
    >> installation any more or less than it should include OpenOffice.org.

    >
    > Frankly, I don't see why Slackware should include _anything_ (according
    > to your reasoning). LaTex has been an integral part of linux distros for
    > a long time, and is used by a huge percentage of linux (and windows also)
    > users - even if you are not aware of that.


    OK, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you're right that "a
    huge percentage of linux users" use LaTeX. (But, let me just add, I'm
    not sure that it's so _obvious_ that in 2008 more Linux users actively
    use LaTeX than they use OOo. But let's just say that more do.)

    > The choice of a distro also includes how much hassle you have afterwards
    > to include the stuff you like. And for a rather traditionalist distro,
    > latex is a must (in my opinion).


    OK, fine. But why not OOo as well? "Traditionalist" doesn't have to
    exclude OOo.

    > I don't use apache for example. Would I advocate, therefore, to leave out
    > apache from slackware?


    Franz, I think that you're misrepresenting what I wrote. I didn't write
    "Don't include teTeX (LaTeX, TeX, etc.) because I don't use it". (So
    your Apache example misses the point.) In fact, as I said, I use LaTeX.
    My point was that to continue including an outdated and unsupported
    version of teTeX makes little sense, especially given the space that it
    occupies. I also said that it would be nice if there were a modestly
    sized and up-to-date LaTeX/TeX package that Slackware (as well as other
    distributions) could include. However, at the moment, what we have is
    TeXLive, which is (or seems) too big to include.

    If you want to argue against what I wrote, (i) you could try to argue
    that even including an outdated and unsupported version teTeX is better
    than including no LaTeX/TeX package at all. Or (ii) you could try to
    argue that Slackware should include a packaging of TeXLive, despite its
    size.

    If I were forced to choose between (i) and (ii), I would definitely
    prefer (ii) over (i).

    Gruss
    Christopher

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2