On Sun, 2007-02-04 at 15:13 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote: > Michael A. Peters wrote: > > >> I don't think it is nearly as easy as you suggest > >> to replace teTeX by TeXLive. > >> In my view, it would be unwise for the OP to follow your advice. > > > > It is extremely easy for most users. > > The last version teTeX and TexLive 2004 were essentially the exact same > > thing with only the layout different. > > That's nonsense, unless you can point me to a TeXLive rpm > that will replace the teTeX rpm that comes with Fedora. It's not nensense. And yes - according to the teTeX maintainer himself, who also did quite a bit of work on TeXLive, they were essentially the same thing with just a different filesystem layout. teTeX layout was intended for single system installation putting its binaries in the existing users path, TeXLive layout is intended for self contained installation within a single mount point allowing it to be shared over NFS (including for use with many operating systems) but the user needs to only set their $PATH to find the binaries. But whatever, the discussion is not going anywhere. > > And just to repeat myself - > I don't think the OPs problem had anything to do with teTeX. > It would be just as likely to arise with TeXLive - > in fact more likely, since TeXLive has not been tested with Fedora. It is very assumptive to state that the problem would have been more likely. TeXLive has been plenty tested with Linux in general, as well as a host of other *nix variants. It also has a built-in protection against old user specific configs screwing around with things - as rather than using the generic ~/.texmf-config that may be left over from a previous install (and me be the cause of the screwiness here) it uses ~/.texlive2007 which is version specific, avoiding those issues.
