[NTG-context] wiki: debian installation
mojca.miklavec.lists at gmail.com
Wed Oct 4 02:02:17 CEST 2006
On 10/2/06, plink wrote:
Thanks a lot for all the comments! Feel free to edit the wiki if
nobody else starts doing so (I have some plans in mind about
changing/improving installation pages, but it's only a question of
starting it and taking some more time ...).
I'm only answering a few of the questions.
> Hmm. The texmfstart warning looks familiar, but missing font
> files? Strange. Anyway, the pdf-file looks ok, so lets be more
> adventurous, and try the second ConTeXt test file from the wiki,
> the one with the little red hat:
> Warning: pdfetex (file /home/myuser/texmf/fonts/map/dvipdfm/
> context/original-base.map): invalid entry for `fmvr8x': font
> file missing
Some time ago it was a hot topic on the mailing list. See:
and fix it if possible even if it is working now for some reason.
But that page should be less hidden, I admit.
> Well, several hours of documentation/wiki grinding later we thought:
> lets do it like the ConTeXt gurus and try the texmfstart thing. We
> created the two liner /home/myuser/bin/texexec:
> texmfstart texexec.rb --nonstopmode "$@"
> and a link
> ln -s ~/texmf/scripts/context/ruby/texmfstart.rb texmfstart
That's the proper way ;)
> Heureka - that was it! Umlauts, special chars in typing environments
> etc. are fine with the new texexec, even if the system wide format
> files are created with the old texexec !?!
texexec only calls pdfTeX with proper arguments, so it's pdfTeX
version (and version of ConTeXt .tex source files) the one that
matters, not really the flavour of texexec.
> hth and wel te rusten,
> PS: One question remains:
> is the texmfstart.rb way now the "official" way of doing ConTeXt on
> Linux/Debian these days?
Yes. It already is the default under MikTeX 2.5 & with stand-alone
ConTeXt, but I have no idea when/if it's going to be the default under
teTeX (it's not maintained any more), gwTeX, ... Hopefully it's going
to be the default under TeX Live, other distributions usually follow
> If so, it´d better be documented for the
> rookies of us somehow/somewhere, if not, something else in the
> documentation needs to be fixed.
Sure, Installation pages should be more unified.
> PPS: No, still no idea who should write all that documentation.
Wiki is left to the users (like & including you).
More information about the ntg-context