Installing TDS at Sussex
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
i could imagine starting one
> carlisle> I think the idea of `registering' every such name is a
> 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.