Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 02:44:17 +0900 From: Koji Yokota <yokota@res.otaru-uc.ac.jp> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: koji_yokota@yahoo.co.jp, Vladimir.Chukharev@tut.fi, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, cjh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is print/latex-beamer really included in teTeX? Message-ID: <20060204174417.GA97581%yokota@res.otaru-uc.ac.jp> In-Reply-To: <200601311222.27163.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <op.s38t1o2lpcmiy5@mail.tut.fi> <200602010133.49031.koji_yokota@yahoo.co.jp> <20060201.021216.70203060.hrs@vlsi.ee.noda.tus.ac.jp> <200601311222.27163.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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@res.otaru-uc.ac.jp) Department of Economics Otaru University of Commerce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060204174417.GA97581%yokota>