Which latex should I install

[af300wsm at gmail.com]

On Jun 26, 2009 10:40am, Roland Smith <rsmith at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 03:27:51PM +0100, Anton Shterenlikht wrote:

> > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 10:21:37AM -0400, Daniel Underwood wrote:

> > > > Is there a FBSD port of TeXLive?

> > >

> > > No, but it's not necessary. Just go here

> > > http://www.tug.org/texlive/acquire.html> and download the DVD image.

> >

> > well.. I'll wait for some kind sole to put a texlive port together.

> > Tetex port has been enough for me for some years now.



> The thing is that teTeX hasn't been updated in years. It has in fact

> been deprecated in favor of TeXLive. This is not a big problem with the

> basic TeX engine, because that doesn't change that much. But pdfTeX (a

> TeX that generates PDF output instead of DVI) has been evolving

> rapidly. And you'll miss out on several years of updates of the macro

> packages (like LaTeX and ConTeXt).



> Another consideration is that TeXLive contains a much larger choice of

> additional packages than teTeX.



> So I would advise you to install TeXLive. The latest DVD comes with

> FreeBSD binaries.



> Look at the mailing list archives for threads called "LaTeX oder teTeX"

> in October 2007, and "Installing latest version of LaTeX" in June

> 2009. In those threads I've posted some instructions on how to get

> TeXLive to work. Installation is pretty easy, but you have to change

> login.conf and manpath.conf to use the binaries and manpages. Normally

> TeXLive keeps everything under its own tree (/usr/local/texlive), so it

> won't mess up the trees /usr/local/{bin,share,...}. Do _not_ tell the

> installer to put symbolic links in /usr/local/bin! That way removing

> TeXLive is as easy as removing /usr/local/texlive.



> Roland


Thanks Roland. Looks like TeXLive it is.

Andy