The tetex-tex4ht package conflicts with texlive-texmf, so I removed it when upgrading to texlive. Unfortunately, there's no replacement for the old tex4ht package in the current set of texlive packages, so now I can't convert my LaTeX docs to HTML.
Could you please describe what files/styles are missing for the correct tex4ht functionality in TeXLive, so that I can add it?
tetex-tex4ht is maintained separately since it is a separate package. This allows to have latest tex4ht. What is the conflict exactly?
A bunch of font files from the version on my machine (F8) conflict with fonts owned by texlive-texfm. Try installing both and you'll see. Hundreds of files conflict; here are just a few. file /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/win/1251/cyrillic/cmcyr/cmcbx.htf from install of tetex-tex4ht-1.0.2007_09_04_0340-1.fc8.x86_64 conflicts with file from package texlive-texmf-2007-0.15.fc9.noarch file /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/win/1251/cyrillic/cmcyr/cmcbxti.htf from install of tetex-tex4ht-1.0.2007_09_04_0340-1.fc8.x86_64 conflicts with file from package texlive-texmf-2007-0.15.fc9.noarch file /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/win/1251/cyrillic/cmcyr/cmccsc.htf from install of tetex-tex4ht-1.0.2007_09_04_0340-1.fc8.x86_64 conflicts with file from package texlive-texmf-2007-0.15.fc9.noarch file /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/win/1251/cyrillic/wncsc.htf from install of tetex-tex4ht-1.0.2007_09_04_0340-1.fc8.x86_64 conflicts with file from package texlive-texmf-2007-0.15.fc9.noarch file /usr/share/texmf/tex4ht/ht-fonts/win/1251/lh/lh-t2a/larm.htf from install of tetex-tex4ht-1.0.2007_09_04_0340-1.fc8.x86_64 conflicts with file from package texlive-texmf-2007-0.15.fc9.noarch
Created attachment 278671 [details] Complete list of conflicting files
Comment on attachment 278671 [details] Complete list of conflicting files It looks like much of tex4ht is already packaged in texlive-texmf. Presumably either tetex-tex4ht should be entirely migrated in there, or the packages should be split up properly.
tex4ht is in its own package, so the files in texlive should be removed. Presumably, this amounts to avoiding putting the corresponding CTAN files in texlive-texmf in the first place, so this is something I don't know how to do, jindrich should be able to do it, though.
I removed all tex4ht stuff from texlive (2007-2 and on).
I am not sure this was the right solution - the tex4ht should have functioned correctly, removing the need for the add-on package.
(In reply to comment #0) > The tetex-tex4ht package conflicts with texlive-texmf, so I removed it when > upgrading to texlive. Unfortunately, there's no replacement for the old tex4ht > package in the current set of texlive packages, so now I can't convert my LaTeX > docs to HTML. Bryan - what happened when you tried to use the tex4ht from texlive?
Looking at the spec for texlive I see that it is configured with --without-tex4htk, which stops the tex4ht binaries being built, hence the tex4ht binaries aren't built with texlive, hence it doesn't work. Personally I think it would be better to use the tex4ht shipped with texlive than the separate add-on package. OTOH using the add-on allows for more recent updates to be included easily. But then, if we go down that route, where do we steop - by the same arguments we could start packaging everything separately. Down that road lies madness :)
Yes, I'd prefer to see texlive's tex4ht shipped, too. Using the older tetex version, as it turns out, produces garbage HTML files.
tetex-tex4ht is much more recent than texlive tex4ht, at least on rawhide. In general, the fact that something is bundled in texlive doesn't mean that it its a good idea too use that version. Indeed texlive is not upstream for many projects it ships so it is better to package the upstream instead. texlive is already a distribution, but we don't want that part of texlive, we only want texlive as a ctan snapshot for ctan packages that have no separate upstream. If there are bugs in tex4ht, please file a bug.
Please file a bug against tex4ht if you found its malfunction with texlive and Cc me there. We should really prefer fixing texlive part packaged separately than in the main package if it's possible.