SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2005

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Jan Iven <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:09:14 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 02:32, Michael Hannon wrote:
> Greetings.  One of the grad students here pointed out to me that version
>   3.0 of teTeX has been released, as of February, 2005.  The new version
> evidently has some very nice features.
> 
> We're currently running RHEL/SL 3.0.3, both of which appear to be using
> teTeX version 1.
> 
> RHEL 4 and Fedora Core 3 are both running teTeX version 2.
> 
> Is there any hope of getting teTeX version 3 integrated into a
> distribution in the foreseeable future?

Looks like it should appear in FedoraCore4 (which will possibly become
Red Hat Enterprise 5, which may then turn into ScientificLinux 5):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=147668
So if we want to stay compatible to Red Hat, teTeX-3 looks to be far
away. An update in a released distribution from Red Hat is unlikely.

This will not prevent anybody from repackaging the RPMs to co-exist with
the current teTeX-1 (e.g. create a tetex3 RPM). Or we could throw RH
compatibility overboard and upgrade for everybody, but this is rather
political. Both would be a long-term commitment to maintain this SL
version, including fixing these pesky security issues:
https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-354.html

The alternative would be to bugzilla those new features from -3 that are
making life difficult under -1. Perhaps bit&pieces can be backported.

Regards
Jan

ATOM RSS1 RSS2