Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID: <3EC226E6.2090207@fillmore-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:22:14 +0200
From: Patrick Eisenacher <eisenacher AT fillmore-labs DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andreas <news DOT Andreas AT gmx DOT net>
CC: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: docbook xml toolchain
References: <BDEIKLGLODPANMFFLBDIMEHMCDAA DOT news DOT Andreas AT gmx DOT net>
In-Reply-To: <BDEIKLGLODPANMFFLBDIMEHMCDAA.news.Andreas@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Authenticated-Sender: eisenacher AT fillmore-labs DOT com
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9
Organization: Fillmore Labs GmbH  <http://www.fillmore-labs.com/>
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT fillmore-labs DOT com

Hi Andreas,

glad to hear that you managed to get the latest passivetex alive & 
kickin on cygwin. Just for completeness, here are the answers to your 
questions:

Andreas schrieb:
> 
> Hmmm, sounds good, I guess /bin/fmtutil needs to be patched, right? There
> are other files related to fmtutil.cnf:
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf.cygwin-dist
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf.cygwin-orig
> /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf.orig

Actually, the file's name is fmtutil.cnf, but Windows strangely doesn't 
give you its extension. Leave the other ones alone. They are not used.

> Letīs assume that I found the lines that needs a fix and put this in
> DocbookCygwinFmtutil.diff, does a simple
> patch -N -u /usr/share/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf DocbookCygwinFmtutil.diff
> would be sufficient or should I rerun your script (further dependencies in
> the process of buliding the passivetex stuff?)?

You have to call

mktexlsr
texconfig confall
texconfig rehash
texconfig init

after patching, otherwise your modifications won't be reflected in tex's 
configuration tables.

> Would a second, third,... run of your install script potentially break
> things that were created at the first run?

No, if patch (the executable) realizes that a patch has already been 
applied, it ignores it. You can safely rerun a patch.

[snip]

> I just converted the fo file into pdf using fop and it is nicely formatted.

My impression based on the feedback on the docbook-apps mailing list is 
that fop gets more development than passivetex. But I could be 
completely wrong about this. I haven't done any serious pdf generation. 
I had just set up the docbook pdf toolchain once and gave it a couple of 
tests. Which one (fop/passivetex) gives you the better results?


Cheers,
Patrick


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/