Installing TDS at Sussex

Sebastian Rahtz
Wed, 13 Sep 1995 11:58:11 +0100

 > Since TeX has to find the image files to get the bounding boxes, I
 > think they should be under tex//. I don't see the advantage to breaking
 > them out.
i'm with Karl on this. though i think Alan has a point. we should
mention it in the TDS, as he says

 > You'd have to duplicate all the paths with two different TEXMF's.
 > There've been some discussions of directly supporting multiple trees,
 > but I have yet to be convinced it's worthwhile.
what do i do when i get a Unix plug-n-play CD out? (which is another
matter to bring up here). I copy it all to some single untouchable
read-only server for a whole group of projects, to provide a base. each
project then has its own packages, fonts, needs etc, and should/could
run a parallel tree of their private stuff, no?

 > that, as we all know. Multiple TEXMF's is a lot more painful than
 > caching, believe me.
if its not obvious, then i have no problem with complicated texmf.cnf
files in practice

 > Are there any real local installations out there with two complete texmf
 > trees?
i could imagine starting one

 >     carlisle> I think the idea of `registering' every such name is a
 >     non-starter. 
 > I agree. I don't see the win here, Sebastian. Explain?

i just want to ensure that if you see tex/latex/umb, it means the same
thing to you and me both.