Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:15:14 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: RJ vd Boon cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: TeX/Web2c v7.2b ported and uploaded In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, RJ vd Boon wrote: > You also said in your previous reply that I should add my new tree to > the TEXMF variable (which I just deleted from djgpp.env, according to > the readme) or add it to TEXMFLOCAL. That's what I wanted in the > README, but as I now think, it also is/should be described in the > docs, so the readme isn't exactly the place to put it. Yes. The README only tells how to set up the default installation, it cannot be a substitute for the docs, particularly in this case, where the amount of different environment variables and options is really mind-boggling. The best place to look for environment variables and their docs is in the TEXMF/web2c/texmf.cnf file. > So if I understand right, it doesn't help setting the RO-bit for some > unzippers and for others it does. This creates (IMHO) an inconsistent > situation between different users, and even for a user[1] who > sometimes unzips in a DOS-box (with infozip), sometimes with wincmd, > and sometimes from nortoncommander, which give different situations, > which I think was never your intention. I tried several unzippers, and all of them didn't restore the read-only bit on directories (my version of Unzip is rather old). So I assumed most of the people won't get it restored, and documented that situation. The directories are zipped with that bit because that's how they are on my system. I guess I could have done it in a more consistent way, either by resetting the attribute before preparing the zip archives, or by explaining some more about this in the README. The thing is, I got very anxious to put this project out the door, since it took such a long time (almost a year, including a long pretest of Web2c 7.2 and a rather long break between last March and now, due to other projects that took precedence). > PS I also noticed that you have ported dviljk-2.6 and not 2.8. I also > noticed that 2.8 is mainly 2.6 + a little bugfix in tfm.c + DJGPP > support-files. Wouldn't it be wise to use 2.8 with DJGPP? I worked on whatever the Web2c team worked at the time, because I wanted to be in sync with them. It is possible that since 7.2 was released for Unix (last March), dviljk 2.8 appeared, which I didn't know about. I did look at the latest Texk distribution and ran diff against the sources I had; all significant changes were put into the port. > Or should I just compile and try it myself (and upload if stable)? This is always a good idea. Please go ahead.