rdt at cs.queensu.ca
Tue Jan 15 16:33:53 CET 2013
>|> This update at CTAN involves changes to both pmx.tex and the pmxab
>|> executable. Unfortunately, TeXLive update 28687 -> 28836 updated the
>|> former but not the latter. I'm trying to find out from the developer
>|> whether this is a serious inconsistency and it may not be necessary to
>|> roll back the update globally. I've put instructions at the WIMA site
>|> and at tex-music at tug.org for either rolling back locally or installing
>|> the new executable from CTAN, but how should this problem be avoided in
>|> the future for pmx and similar packages when there are changes to both
>|> the texmf tree and executables?
>|> I want updates at CTAN so users and binary-updating distributions
>|> like MiKTeX can get the latest versions, but how do I discourage
>|> distributions like TeXLive from updating inconsistently? Would a "note"
>|> to the CTAN maintainers when I upload an update be sufficient? I had
>|> thought the presence of a new 2.6.19 tarball would be sufficient.
>|My understanding (and I am a complete outsider to all this)
>|is that TeX Live executable images are not updated between
>|releases. If a non-binary file update /requires/ a an
>|executable image update, I personally have no idea how
>|or evn whether this can be accomplished within the present
>|TeX Live regime.
I know that and I wasn't asking for that.
More information about the tex-live