Re: Redhat and Tetex

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:38:19AM +0000, Robin Fairbairns wrote:

> why should the tex community be involved in a commercial organisation?
> i've been using tetex 2 in this department for a _long_ time, and
> tetex's gone through at least one (possibly 2) full new versions since
> then.  what on earth more do you want? ... i'm almost beginning to
> believe that you really are seeking more fly-by-night software.

If there is a newer version than 2.0.2, please let me know where.  Our
tetex RPM package (yes, the one in Fedora -- which incidentally feeds
into the commercial Red Hat Enterprise Linux products, see
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/faq/) was updated to 2.0.2 in March.

Previous postings in this thread pointed out two Linux distributions
that have this version -- including one with a Red Hat-maintained
tetex package.

At the time Red Hat Linux 9 development froze for release, there was
no teTeX 2 release to include.

> that's right.  the developer community have moved on from using it,
> so no-one sees any point in working on it.  i'll see about getting
> it withdrawn from distributions, next month when we all meet.  (we,
> including one of the authors of passivetex.)

Yes please.  What are the former-passivetex community using in
preference now?

I'm not going to be drawn into a big argument.  It's just that there
were already two helpful posts in this thread, but you carried it on
apparently just to rant against Red Hat.

Tim.
*/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAF5VV9gevn0C09XYRAuF3AJ46ofYSR+ojPwAmizS4Huswhd7x1wCfX/mA
Hk2YQmpY8mgFrw0ueudiid0=
=0I/q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----