Is print/latex-beamer really included in teTeX?

[Koji Yokota]

My understanding is that cjk-patch basically adds functionality to
handle double-byte characters. It does not change normal functionality
of (original) lyx or appearance at all. But of course, it is not
accepted as a part of (original) lyx at this moment. I heard that
its merge is planned (or under consideration) after the release of 1.4.0
when it adopts unicode.

As far as the release lag problem is solved, I think lyx and cjk-lyx
ports are already at the position that they can at least share majour
part of the ports as Hiroki suggested.

As for japanese/lyx port, I personally think it should be abolished.
cjk-lyx is developed upon the patch of japanese/lyx, so it is the
successor of japanese/lyx. Furthermore, development of japanese/lyx 
stopped long time ago.

Koji

On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 12:22:26PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> §Ó§ö§Ó§ä§à§â§à§Ü 31 §ã§ö§é§Ö§ß§î 2006 12:12, Hiroki Sato §£§Ú §ß§Ñ§á§Ú§ã§Ñ§Ý§Ú:
> > ?I think it is better to separate the two from each other since
> > ?updating does not always happen at the same time (probably a slave
> > ?port does not work here). ?However, using a patch for the CJK
> > ?version (i.e. CJK-LyX-qt-1.3.6-1.patch) instead of the patched
> > ?distfile CJK-LyX-qt-1.3.6-1.src.tar.gz, we can share major part
> > ?of the Makefile among print/cjk-lyx and print/lyx by using
> > ?something like "Makefile.common" file.
> 
> Does the cjk-patch make the program unusable for the "regular" users, or does 
> it simply add extra functionality, that is only useful for some?
> 
> If it is the former, it can become one of the port's options. If the latter, 
> we can always use it in the port.
> 
> 	-mi
> 

-- 
Koji Yokota (yokota at res.otaru-uc.ac.jp)
Department of Economics
Otaru University of Commerce