[texhax] luximono

[Lars Madsen]

Reinhard Kotucha wrote, On 2012-07-03 23:13:
> On 2012-07-03 at 15:09:57 +0000, Hefferon, James S. wrote:
> 
>  > > pass, the Ubuntu TL is very old (is it still 2009?) I just know
>  > > things work with TUG TL, so I tend to recommend that one over the
>  > > Ubuntu one.
>  > 
>  > I understand your point.  But I know from past experience that if I
>  > go off-package then I will start being confused by the need to
>  > --force install packages that require texlive (such as AUCTeX), and
>  > other hair-pulling issues.  So there is a tradeoff involved.
> 
> The TeX Live installer doesn't put anything into standard search
> paths.  If you are the only user of your computer, you can set PATH,
> MANPATH, and INFOPATH in $HOME/.bashrc and the Ubuntu package manager
> will not notice that there is an alien TeX Live installation at all.
> Of course, I don't recommend to remove the TL-2009 system provided by
> Ubuntu.  It doesn't hurt.


I would only change the PATH in .bashrc if I knew the user was a purely 
command-line person.
On Ubuntu I usually prefix it in within /etc/environment, then editors 
can still find the new LaTeX when opened from a menu or by double 
clicking on a file.


> 
> It's quite similar to what I'm doing.  I don't have TeX in PATH at
> all.  Instead there are zillions of shell scripts (TL2003, TL2004,
> ... TL2012) which add a particular TeX system to PATH and start a new
> shell.  The Gentoo Linux package manager isn't aware of those TeX
> systems and I never ran into trouble.
> 
> I suppose that "apt-get install equivs", as proposed by Lars, is only
> needed if TeX Live is added to PATH globally and thus visible to the
> package management system.
> 
> I don't see any reason why TeX Live from tug.org can cause any
> trouble.  It doesn't touch your system unless you tell it to do so.
> It's definitely worth a try.
> 
> Regards,
>   Reinhard
> 


-- 

/daleif