new zips today 2008-04-16 at 11:00 -- luigi it's new . it's powerful . it's luatex . http://www.luatex.org
Hi all, Hans has been very busy today. Just now, he uploaded the fourth "current" of today, and we now believe to have fixed all reported bugs introduced by 2008.04.15. Of course we cannot be sure, but please have look at http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Release_Note for everything we did change and patch in the past 24 hours. If nothing bad happens, this release will go to CTAN (and debian, I presume) sometime tomorrow. Best wishes, Taco
Hi all, On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Release_Note
for everything we did change and patch in the past 24 hours. If nothing bad happens, this release will go to CTAN (and debian, I presume) sometime tomorrow.
Preliminary packages are available at the usual location
deb http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ context/
deb-src http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ context/
Please give it a try.
I made tests and it passed all context/pdftex tests and the simple
context/luatex I am using.
Taco/Hans: Do you require the newest lmodern with the change of font
names in this context version? Debian currently has 1.010x.
This is important because we have to make a concerted action in case the
deps are on the new lmodern.
Thanks and all the best
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi all,
On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Release_Note
for everything we did change and patch in the past 24 hours. If nothing bad happens, this release will go to CTAN (and debian, I presume) sometime tomorrow.
Preliminary packages are available at the usual location deb http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ context/ deb-src http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ context/ Please give it a try.
I made tests and it passed all context/pdftex tests and the simple context/luatex I am using.
Taco/Hans: Do you require the newest lmodern with the change of font names in this context version? Debian currently has 1.010x.
This is important because we have to make a concerted action in case the deps are on the new lmodern.
indeed we need the latest although in the luatex version there is a kind of fallback name subsystem, thanks for your prompt package building Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Hans Hagen wrote:
indeed we need the latest although in the luatex version there is a kind of fallback name subsystem,
Aehmmmmm.... what does this mean??? So either you need it, or there is a fallback system ... semantics are sometimes dangerous ;-) So if we ship the old or the new one there is no problem with the one or the other?
thanks for your prompt package building
No problem, there are normally not many things to do but running the
tests.
But I still hope that some Debian ConTeXt user could check that
everything works as expected etc etc.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
Norbert Preining wrote:
On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Hans Hagen wrote:
indeed we need the latest although in the luatex version there is a kind of fallback name subsystem,
Aehmmmmm.... what does this mean??? So either you need it, or there is a fallback system ... semantics are sometimes dangerous ;-)
well, it may work with the old fonts (depends on how old), in font-syn.tex you will find fonts.names.new_to_old = { ["lmroman10-capsregular"] = "lmromancaps10-oblique", ["lmroman10-capsoblique"] = "lmromancaps10-regular", ["lmroman10-demi"] = "lmromandemi10-oblique", ["lmroman10-demioblique"] = "lmromandemi10-regular", ["lmroman8-oblique"] = "lmromanslant8-regular", ["lmroman9-oblique"] = "lmromanslant9-regular", ["lmroman10-oblique"] = "lmromanslant10-regular", ["lmroman12-oblique"] = "lmromanslant12-regular", etc. so older fonts are ok for context/luatex; while for xetex new fonts are needed.
So if we ship the old or the new one there is no problem with the one or the other?
not for luatex/context Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Hans Hagen wrote:
well, it may work with the old fonts (depends on how old), in font-syn.tex you will find
Well it is the last release before the renaming of the fonts, as I said 1.01x.
etc. so older fonts are ok for context/luatex; while for xetex new fonts are needed.
So if we ship the old or the new one there is no problem with the one or the other?
not for luatex/context
Huuu ... above you say
"so older fonts are ok for context/luatex; while for xetex new fonts
are needed"
and then
"not for luatex/context"
So I assume the situation is as follows:
- for context/luatex: ok with old and new ones
- for context/xetex: new ones are necessary
Ok, I will think about updating the lmodern fonts, too, but renaming the
font names is really a pain, you shouldn't do that after a 1.something
release. No idea why they did that.
Thanks for the information
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Norbert Preining wrote:
- for context/luatex: ok with old and new ones - for context/xetex: new ones are necessary
Ok, I will think about updating the lmodern fonts, too, but renaming the
Hmm, according to Ralf updating the lmodern is a no-go because that
would need euenc/fontspec updates, which would need ... devilish.
(See bugs.debian.org/469437)
I guess we have to live with this for lenny. And for the next we will
have TL2008 with new xetex/luatex and can ship new context and fonts.
Or do you have another suggestion???
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Norbert Preining wrote:
- for context/luatex: ok with old and new ones - for context/xetex: new ones are necessary
True.
Ok, I will think about updating the lmodern fonts, too, but renaming the
Hmm, according to Ralf updating the lmodern is a no-go because that would need euenc/fontspec updates, which would need ... devilish. (See bugs.debian.org/469437)
I guess we have to live with this for lenny. And for the next we will have TL2008 with new xetex/luatex and can ship new context and fonts.
Or do you have another suggestion???
ConTeXt + XeTeX will be broken without the latest LM fonts. ConTeX + LuaTeX works OK. For XeLaTeX you indeed need to update fontspec, but if you're reluctant to upgrade the rest of XeTeX, a fix of fontspec to support the latest LM fonts is so minor, that it's really not worth having a broken ConTeXt+XeTeX. fontspec might need only a few name fixes, that's all. Maybe Jonathan and Will have something more to say about which version of XeTeX and fontspec might be best to consider to make its way into Debian, but a humble request from my side - please do upgrade LM. (MikTeX has done that already.) Mojca
On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
For XeLaTeX you indeed need to update fontspec, but if you're reluctant to upgrade the rest of XeTeX, a fix of fontspec to support the latest LM fonts is so minor, that it's really not worth having a broken ConTeXt+XeTeX. fontspec might need only a few name fixes, that's all.
Give me a patch and I will see whether it is so "minor".
Debian, but a humble request from my side - please do upgrade LM.
There are people using xetex without context, and I don't want to break
anything for them. context/luatex and context/xetex are more
experimental (or at least I consider them that way).
I need to see the necessary changes before I can discuss that.
Jonathan, Will: It is about TeX Live 2007 in Debian/lenny. There will be
no TL2008 in lenny. But we have recent context and recent luatex.
It is about updating the lmodern fonts, currently we have 1.01x, the
last before the otf and font names were renamed.
What changes would be necessary for fontspec and/or euenc and/or xetex
so that we don't break everything, and have a working:
xetex
context/xetex
Thanks for any enlightening comments!!
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
On 16 Apr 2008, at 7:56 pm, Norbert Preining wrote:
Jonathan, Will: It is about TeX Live 2007 in Debian/lenny. There will be no TL2008 in lenny. But we have recent context and recent luatex.
It is about updating the lmodern fonts, currently we have 1.01x, the last before the otf and font names were renamed.
What changes would be necessary for fontspec and/or euenc and/or xetex so that we don't break everything, and have a working: xetex context/xetex
Given that there won't be TL2008 in lenny, I think it would be very desirable to update xetex to a more recent version than 0.996 as shipped with TL2007. This would provide several important bug-fixes and improve compatibility with certain latex packages (I don't know much about the context situation). If you stay with the TL2007 release, it will quickly look quite stale compared to other distributions that are around, and will frustrate users when features that others are using don't work for them. If you're willing to consider this, I can make and tag a branch in our Subversion repository to give you a stable version to use (you'll need to use that rather than the TL repository). Let me know if I should do that. Don't try to grab the latest code from my TRUNK, as that's sometimes a bit too experimental. JK
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
On 16 Apr 2008, at 7:56 pm, Norbert Preining wrote:
Given that there won't be TL2008 in lenny, I think it would be very desirable to update xetex to a more recent version than 0.996 as shipped with TL2007.
(I don't know much about the context situation).
ConTeXt would be happy to have the \supressfontnotfounderror fix available (which means: happy to have a binary version of XeTeX later than the one in TL 2007), but should work OK with the old one with some semi-serious time penalty. If one also forgets all the other nice bug fixes in xetex, old LM fonts are the only issue that would really break functionality. Mojca
On 17 Apr 2008, at 1:09 am, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:42 AM, Jonathan Kew wrote:
On 16 Apr 2008, at 7:56 pm, Norbert Preining wrote:
Given that there won't be TL2008 in lenny, I think it would be very desirable to update xetex to a more recent version than 0.996 as shipped with TL2007.
(I don't know much about the context situation).
ConTeXt would be happy to have the \supressfontnotfounderror fix available (which means: happy to have a binary version of XeTeX later than the one in TL 2007),
OK, but for Debian it'll need to be provided as a source patch, we can't simply give them a binary. JK
On Do, 17 Apr 2008, Jonathan Kew wrote:
If you're willing to consider this, I can make and tag a branch in our Subversion repository to give you a stable version to use (you'll
I am considering that, and (but) best would be to have a patch against
the sources in TeX Live 2007 (the bug fix branch I mean).
Is there a chance to get such a patch?
And we should at the same time update the necessary packages (is euenc
and fontspec enough?)
So, yes, I am consider that.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
Hi Will, On Do, 17 Apr 2008, Will Robertson wrote:
All other XeTeX+LaTeX packages are unaffected and you should use the latest versions from the SVN repository. If you need me to upload the
Umpf, I don't like to package stuff that is in some svn repository for a
stable release, stuff that hasn't seen at least a decent amount of
testing.
Honestly, I fear to open a pandora's box here. We are now at a level
that I would have to:
- patch xetex and probably xdvipdfmx
- patch several tex packages
- update the lmodern fonts
And I am not sure that all this will *not* affect anything else in
TeX Live 2007!?!?
Furthermore, to be honest, I currently have not the time to prepare such
a big thing.
If one wants to step in and make a patch please grab
http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/src/texlive-bin_2007.dfsg.1.orig.tar....
and send a patch against it. It contains fontspec, euenc, and xltxtra.
Receiving this patch I can (re)consider the whole thing.
Sorry, but I have my time constraints, final theoretical mountain guide
exam, upstream TeX Live work, and a real life ;-))))
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
On 17/04/2008, at 3:08 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
Honestly, I fear to open a pandora's box here.
Bleah, I can see your concern. Sorry, I didn't know how you went about actually creating this package. It sounds like it would be easiest to stick with the official releases of TeXLive, despite the long-ish lag-time. W
On Do, 17 Apr 2008, Will Robertson wrote:
Sorry, I didn't know how you went about actually creating this package.
The packages are created from the actual TeX Live release, or better from the security branch of the subversion repository, the tag 2007.1 or how it is called.
It sounds like it would be easiest to stick with the official releases of TeXLive, despite the long-ish lag-time.
Well yes and no. If the changes are not too invasive we can do it, but
you remember what I said ... ;-)
The problem is when lenny gets stable there will be *no* changes besides
security changes. We will not have the chance to get fixes for stupid
bugs that creeped in into lenny.
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
On 17 Apr 2008, at 7:23 am, Norbert Preining wrote:
On Do, 17 Apr 2008, Will Robertson wrote:
Sorry, I didn't know how you went about actually creating this package.
The packages are created from the actual TeX Live release, or better from the security branch of the subversion repository, the tag 2007.1 or how it is called.
There's a tag "2007.0", which matches the actual release DVD, and there's a "branch2007" which has had a few bug fixes applied (mostly bugfixes in xetex, also apparently some security fixes in dviljk). What I suggest is that I review xetex bug-fixes since the 2007 release, and back-port the most important ones to branch2007 in TeX Live; we can also include the \suppressfontnotfounderror or whatever it's called, for the sake of the new context. But we won't try to include any of the major new features (like Graphite font support, or the new ICU version, etc), which would make for a massive patch. This would give you a "xetex 0.996-patch2" in Lenny (what's in branch2007 is currently 0.996-patch1), should work for both context and non-context users, and should be non-invasive as far as the rest of TL is concerned. If I do this, and create a tag "2007.1" in TL with the updated branch2007 version, are you able to use this as the base for your package? I presume you don't use the actual binaries from TL Master/ bin anyway, so what matters is what we have in the source tree. JK
On Do, 17 Apr 2008, Jonathan Kew wrote:
If I do this, and create a tag "2007.1" in TL with the updated branch2007 version, are you able to use this as the base for your
Of course, that would be great. And if you want to be nice to me, too, send me a simple diff (svn diff output) of what you did and I am settled.
package? I presume you don't use the actual binaries from TL Master/
No, of course not.
bin anyway, so what matters is what we have in the source tree.
Right.
Big thanks a lot.
That leaves the changes to euenc, fontspec, xltx..., ??? TO do or not
to?
Best wishes
Norbert
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hans Hagen skrev:
Norbert Preining wrote:
Hi all,
On Mi, 16 Apr 2008, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
http://wiki.contextgarden.net/Release_Note
for everything we did change and patch in the past 24 hours. If nothing bad happens, this release will go to CTAN (and debian, I presume) sometime tomorrow.
Preliminary packages are available at the usual location deb http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ context/ deb-src http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ context/ Please give it a try.
It seems that the debian install on above repository not did work for me as expected. The luatex engine were lost. I did the first-setup.sh script and setuptex and added necessary lines in my .bashrc so my documents are build perfect. I have ubuntu gutsy 7.10 with only minimal-context installed All best and wishes and thanks for this wonderful tool no more microsoft word no more LateX forever conteXt Janneman - Sweden -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIBmMB/zRis+sQPvARAvwOAJ96FY5Ig5VCzr3rincUtsYuj7stIACeLvWU QES3nAJ+2LowLIY5HCYUbGU= =8SHg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (8)
-
Hans Hagen -
Jan-Erik Hägglöf -
Jonathan Kew -
luigi scarso -
Mojca Miklavec -
Norbert Preining -
Taco Hoekwater -
Will Robertson