ConTeXt standalone - in what situations is it better?
Hello, I was looking into simplefonts (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/simplefonts) and noticed the clause
if you’re running ConTeXt Standalone http://wiki.contextgarden.net/ConTeXt_Standalone (which is a better option)
Well I'm using TeXLive, but am happy to take good advice, so I looked at http://wiki.contextgarden.net/ConTeXt_Standalone to see why it would be a better option. The basic reason I can see is that Standalone is updated more frequently. So if you're using bleeding-edge features of ConTeXt (including recent fixes to simplefonts?), I can see wanting to use Standalone and have access to the latest features and fixes. On the other hand, if you're working on a large production project that has to be careful of stability, is there any advantage to Standalone over TeXLive? Sure, you can keep a standalone version frozen in place, but then that seems equivalent to staying with an existing version of TeXLive. The other issue for me with Standalone is that the only version listed for Windows is "W32TeX". When I go to the web page for that platform, I don't see any information about what W32TeX is; just how to install it. It sounds like it's specific to 32-bit systems, and mine is 64-bit. But I suppose in that regard it's no different from TeXLive -- the executables are 32-bit but they run fine on 64-bit systems. Does anybody have advice for me on other reasons for switching from TeXLive to ConTeXt Standalone, or reasons not to? Thanks, Lars
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Lars Huttar wrote:
The other issue for me with Standalone is that the only version listed for Windows is "W32TeX". When I go to the web page for that platform, I don't see any information about what W32TeX is; just how to install it. It sounds like it's specific to 32-bit systems, and mine is 64-bit. But I suppose in that regard it's no different from TeXLive -- the executables are 32-bit but they run fine on 64-bit systems.
http://w32tex.org/ It's another distribution created by a Japanese guru for compiling binaries with Visual Studio. You don't need to install W32TeX yourself, but those binaries are used in both TeX Live and ConTeXt distribution, so you basically get the same binaries (only maybe slightly newer version with ConTeXt distribution). And yes, the binaries work fine on a 64-bit system. Since recently there are 64-bit binaries available, but I didn't manage to fix the scripts yet to fetch those binaries when applicable.
Does anybody have advice for me on other reasons for switching from TeXLive to ConTeXt Standalone, or reasons not to?
If TeX Live works for you, there is no real need to switch, but if you ever need a patch or some new functionality, it would be easier to use the latest version. Mojca
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:57:35 +0200
Mojca Miklavec
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Lars Huttar wrote:
The other issue for me with Standalone is that the only version listed for Windows is "W32TeX". When I go to the web page for that platform, I don't see any information about what W32TeX is; just how to install it. It sounds like it's specific to 32-bit systems, and mine is 64-bit. But I suppose in that regard it's no different from TeXLive -- the executables are 32-bit but they run fine on 64-bit systems.
It's another distribution created by a Japanese guru for compiling binaries with Visual Studio. You don't need to install W32TeX yourself, but those binaries are used in both TeX Live and ConTeXt distribution, so you basically get the same binaries (only maybe slightly newer version with ConTeXt distribution). And yes, the binaries work fine on a 64-bit system. Since recently there are 64-bit binaries available, but I didn't manage to fix the scripts yet to fetch those binaries when applicable.
Does anybody have advice for me on other reasons for switching from TeXLive to ConTeXt Standalone, or reasons not to?
If TeX Live works for you, there is no real need to switch, but if you ever need a patch or some new functionality, it would be easier to use the latest version.
Mojca
There is a problem with using Texlive and a problem with using Standalone. In the simplefonts area in particular documentation and examples may rely on changes that weren't in place when Texlive 2103 was put together. This is a rapidly developing area. The problem with Standalone is that the full range of fonts found with Texlive is not available. Standalone has 258 otf fonts and TexLive has 508 otf fonts. So I am opting for TeXLive, although I have both. Another dfficulty is that many of the examples for simplefonts are apparently developed on a Windows system and I use Linux. Font names are different. -- John Culleton Wexford Press Free list of books for self-publishers: http://wexfordpress.net/shortlist.html PDF e-book: "Create Book Covers with Scribus" available at http://www.booklocker.com/books/4055.html
The problem with Standalone is that the full range of fonts found with Texlive is not available. Standalone has 258 otf fonts and TexLive has 508 otf fonts. So I am opting for TeXLive, although I have both.
I use standalone in parallel with texlive (which I need for latex). In the Arch PKGBUILD that I maintain, I use: # If texlive exists, use fonts from texlive if [ -d $_texlivefontdir ] then mkdir -p $srcdir/tex/texmf-fonts if [ -L $srcdir/tex/texmf-fonts/fonts ] then rm $srcdir/tex/texmf-fonts/fonts fi ln -s $_texlivefontdir $srcdir/tex/texmf-fonts/fonts fi So, if TL is installed, the TL font directory is symlinked at an appropriate location and all the TL fonts are available with ConTeXt standalone as well.
Another dfficulty is that many of the examples for simplefonts are apparently developed on a Windows system and I use Linux. Font names are different.
I haven't had any trouble with using simplefonts in Linux (but then, I rarely consult the wiki for usage examples). Could you point to specific examples. Aditya
Am 24.10.2013 um 16:18 schrieb Aditya Mahajan
Another dfficulty is that many of the examples for simplefonts are apparently developed on a Windows system and I use Linux. Font names are different.
I haven't had any trouble with using simplefonts in Linux (but then, I rarely consult the wiki for usage examples). Could you point to specific examples.
That’s interesting because I use in many of my examples fonts from the TeX Gyre Project and also fonts from the DejaVu family which are available on Linux. Which example leads to the thought simplefonts was written on a Windows system? Wolfgang
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Lars Huttar wrote:
Hello, I was looking into simplefonts (http://wiki.contextgarden.net/simplefonts) and noticed the clause
if you’re running ConTeXt Standalone http://wiki.contextgarden.net/ConTeXt_Standalone (which is a better option)
Well I'm using TeXLive, but am happy to take good advice, so I looked at http://wiki.contextgarden.net/ConTeXt_Standalone to see why it would be a better option. The basic reason I can see is that Standalone is updated more frequently.
Three or four years ago, when ConTeXt was moving from MkII to MkIV, you had to run through hoops to get context working with TL. Since the last two years, ConTeXt works out of the box in TL.
So if you're using bleeding-edge features of ConTeXt (including recent fixes to simplefonts?), I can see wanting to use Standalone and have access to the latest features and fixes.
On the other hand, if you're working on a large production project that has to be careful of stability, is there any advantage to Standalone over TeXLive? Sure, you can keep a standalone version frozen in place, but then that seems equivalent to staying with an existing version of TeXLive.
No. In some sense, it is better to use the frozen version that is part of TL rather than an arbitrary beta version from standalone. Every once in a while, the beta version has bugs (those are usually fixed in a matter of hours). But it can be tricky to decide which version to freeze for a long term production environment. On the other hand, the version of ConTeXt that ships with TL is tested more thoroughly. So, there is some guarantee that it will not include any serious bugs. Aditya
participants (5)
-
Aditya Mahajan -
john Culleton -
Lars Huttar -
Mojca Miklavec -
Wolfgang Schuster