|Summary:||pdftex included in tetex is outdated|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||clepple|
|Component:||tetex||Assignee:||Tim Waugh <twaugh>|
|Status:||CLOSED WONTFIX||QA Contact:||David Lawrence <dkl>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2001-05-11 14:15:04 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
Description clepple 2001-04-30 18:21:29 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.01; Windows NT 5.0) <-- OK, you caught me :-) The version of pdftex in the tetex package (the one included with RH 6.2, 7.0 and 7.1) is 0.13d, which is getting outdated. The current version is somewhere around 0.14h, I think. Including a new version would help reduce the number of FAQs on the pdftex lists (the answers to which usually end in "...upgrade to the latest version"). Since pdftex development moves much faster than plain TeX or LaTeX, it may be a good idea to split pdftex and pdflatex into a separate RPM (though I don't know much about the tetex distribution itself -- this may be asking for trouble if the rest of tetex gets upgraded). Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. pdftex -v => pdfTeX (Web2C 7.3.1) 3.14159-0.13d [...] A good point of reference for pdfTeX is http://www.tug.org/applications/pdftex/ - an archive of the mailing list is there, and in the archive there are several explanations of how to install new versions. The other option might be to switch to MiKTeX.
Comment 1 Rex Dieter 2001-05-11 14:14:59 UTC
FYI, Switching to MikTeX is not an option as it is a Windows-only TeX distribution. )-: Otherwise, either manually patch in the new pdftex into tetex or lobby tetex to do it for us.
Comment 2 Tim Waugh 2001-06-04 22:26:07 UTC
I would rather have the upstream teTeX maintainer integrate it I think. Presumably tetex-beta has a recent pdftex..