[NTG-pdftex] cmd line arguments

Reinhard Kotucha reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Thu Jan 5 07:42:46 CET 2006

>>>>> "Hans" == Hans Hagen <pragma at wxs.nl> writes:

  > so, although your proposal is ok from the prespective of
  > portability, it's not needed from the perspective of windows

Yes, but it is a bit annoying that you have to download and install
all the software under windows which is part of any Linux

At work I installed cygwin for this reason.  I'm really tired from
downloading/installing all the tools I need.  It would be ok if Perl
gets installed by the TeXLive installer.

  > concerning portability ... in principle all those shell scripts
  > that now need to be provided as c program of perl script on
  > windows qualify for some kind of luafying (we can even consider
  > putting lua itself in the bin distributions; it's small)

Maybe.  But I think that as a replacement for shell scripts, Perl/Tk
is a better choice (with emphasis on Tk).

But then we need a Perl which is aware of kpathsea so that the module
path can be set in texnf.cnf.  I doubt that anyone wants to maintain

  > (context ships with a ruby ps->pdf script and converting that
  > would take quite some lua code -)

Will look into your ruby file when I have more time.  It seems that
not everybody is satisfied with epstopdf...

  > i can imagine that we provide access to the raw commandline (i
  > assume that this info is available somewhere)

Yes, but it would be good if we could convince tex (the program)
not to complain so loudly if there is an option it doesn't know.


Reinhard Kotucha			              Phone: +49-511-4592165
Marschnerstr. 25
D-30167 Hannover	                      mailto:reinhard.kotucha at web.de
Microsoft isn't the answer. Microsoft is the question, and the answer is NO.

More information about the ntg-pdftex mailing list