Hallo!
I want to use the TeX in my wiki. That is why I want to install it. But the problem is that I' ve got only webspace. So I can't install TeX packets on the server. Are there TeX programms which I only must copy on the webspace? Or are there other solutions for my problem?
Thanks in advance!
Jack
Hallo!
I want to use the TeX in my wiki. That is why I want to install it. But the problem is that I' ve got only webspace. So I can't install TeX packets on the server. Are there TeX programms which I only must copy on the webspace? Or are there other solutions for my problem?
TeX is dependant on O'Caml (a programming language) which requires a compiler and make system in order to build and install it.
AFAIK there is no solution on a straight web server.
Aaron
Why don't the publishers of TeX just compile first? Why do *I* always have to do the compiling of these programs?!
Aaron Gray wrote:
TeX is dependant on O'Caml (a programming language) which requires a compiler and make system in order to build and install it.
Don't know if it helps but :
You can find a pre-compiled binary version (for linux x86) at http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=34373
However this quite old now and I'm not certain whether it's still working with latest releases of Mediawiki (> 1.10)
Steve VanSlyck wrote :
Why don't the publishers of TeX just compile first? Why do *I* always have to do the compiling of these programs?!
Aaron Gray wrote:
TeX is dependant on O'Caml (a programming language) which requires a compiler and make system in order to build and install it.
On Sun, 2007-12-30 at 09:31 -0500, Steve VanSlyck wrote:
Why don't the publishers of TeX just compile first? Why do *I* always have to do the compiling of these programs?!
Speaking as a maintainer of upstream FLOSS software, I believe I can answer this.
I've had thousands of users over the years ask me to build pre-compiled binary packages for my releases, and I can say that it's nearly impossible to do so.
There's no way for me to have all of the possible platforms (32-bit, 64-bit, x86, ppc, etc.) as well as all of the various library versions (with ssl, without ssl, older versions, bleeding-edge versions, etc.) and all of the necessary other pieces to replicate a version which works on every single platform for every single user. Statically-compiled binaries aren't a solution either in most cases.
If someone wants to donate hardware that matches every single platform that those users might be using, and contribute to the power bills I'll be paying to use those platforms, I'll gladly consider it, but it's just not a viable option for time/cost/availability reasons.
While I understand what you are saying, I do not understand the problem. Nearly every windows program out there is issued pre-compiled, and surely there are as many different windows hardware configs as there are unix.
David A. Desrosiers wrote:
I've had thousands of users over the years ask me to build pre-compiled binary packages for my releases, and I can say that it's nearly impossible to do so.
On 30/12/2007, Steve VanSlyck s.vanslyck@spamcop.net wrote:
While I understand what you are saying, I do not understand the problem. Nearly every windows program out there is issued pre-compiled, and surely there are as many different windows hardware configs as there are unix.
Frequently the people who write the software won't have access to the commercial Microsoft compiling environment, and anyone with Cygwin could run ./configure;make;make install as easily as anyone on Unix. Windows is an utterly alien environment to the Unix way of doing things; supporting Unix open source software properly on Windows - as a reasonably bulletproof package - is something a project has to take on seriously to do well, and most just don't have the resources.
This sort of thing is why we have distributions who maintain dependency-resolving repositories ... and why the usual answer to "you don't have x in your repository!" is likely to be "here are the steps to become a maintainer."
- d.
Steve VanSlyck wrote:
While I understand what you are saying, I do not understand the problem. Nearly every windows program out there is issued pre-compiled,
With a nice installer containing all dependencies. What was the last windows program you bought whose instructions were "unzip in a folder and run"? They can be made, and in fact many directly run when copying its install folder... perhaps failing on systems without X redistributable dll/assemblies. However, PE is not that bad. It's frustraiting when you pass a binary between linux systems (same distro) and fails because it's linked to a lib lying on a different directory and the path is hardcoded.
and surely there are as many different windows hardware configs as there are unix.
*nix supports more platforms. Almost every windows program you see is x86 32 bits. Now you start seeing dual distributions also with 64 bits versions. But 64 bits windows will run 32 bits apps (but not dlls). PPC programs are completely different and won't work on x86.
Steve VanSlyck wrote:
Why don't the publishers of TeX just compile first? Why do *I* always have to do the compiling of these programs?!
uhh - I run Debian - it only took installing mediawiki1.7-math to get the extension and all the dependencies. And yes, they were installed from binary packages.
"apt-get install mediawiki1.7-math" does it..
I think from installing media-wiki, mysql and having math working and configured (it requires teX) took almost 20 minutes. YMMV
I didn't need to compile anything - just a few configuration deals. I did spend a little time later writing a script to automatically backup the database.
If you needed to customize something it is only a couple of command lines to build it anyway. My hunch is you are using the wrong OS for a server.
---------------------------------------------------------------- Karl Schmidt EMail Karl@xtronics.com Transtronics, Inc. WEB http://xtronics.com 3209 West 9th Street Ph (785) 841-3089 Lawrence, KS 66049 FAX (785) 841-0434
Misdirection is the key to being a good magician. Magicians tell you they are doing something while they do something quite different; much like politicians -- except we can afford magicians. -KPS
----------------------------------------------------------------
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org