Thread: [MiKTeX] Experimenting with luaTeX & ConTeXt
MiKTeX source code moved to GitHub
Brought to you by:
csc
From: Joel C. S. <joe...@gm...> - 2009-01-14 02:46:48
|
I'm running MiKTeX 2.7 and I'd like to experiment with the new ConTeXt/luaTeX betas a bit. How can I best do that without interfering with my MiKTeX installation? I am thinking to add a new texmf tree using the MiKTeX Settings program, and install the "minimals" there. Is that the best idea? Should I remove the ConTeXt packages from my MiKTeX installation before I start? --Joel |
From: Mojca M. <moj...@gm...> - 2009-01-14 07:14:38
|
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Joel C. Salomon wrote: > I'm running MiKTeX 2.7 and I'd like to experiment with the new > ConTeXt/luaTeX betas a bit. How can I best do that without interfering > with my MiKTeX installation? > > I am thinking to add a new texmf tree using the MiKTeX Settings > program, and install the "minimals" there. Is that the best idea? > > Should I remove the ConTeXt packages from my MiKTeX installation before I start? Hello Joel, Remove ConTeXt packages? MikTeX removed them from repository back in May, so if ConTeXt still works for you on MikTeX out-of-the-box, you're just lucky. I would leave ConTeXt there as it is. I have been running MikTeX and standalone ConTeXt distribution in parallel for a very long time before. All you need to do is to extract & run http://minimals.contextgarden.net/setup/context-setup-mswin.zip Then create a file pragmatex.bat (the name doesn't really matter) with this content: C:\Programs\context\tex\setuptex.bat C:\Programs\context\tex and make sure that this file is visible by PATH. You can safely continue using MikTeX. If you want to invoke the stand-alone distribution, just execute pragmatex from the command-line and all the subsequent calls to texexec/context will use files from the stand-alone tree. Alternatively you could probably just put all the needed binaries in place of MikTeX binaries, but you would need to keep updating both ConTeXt and LuaTeX regularly, and you might need to keep asking several questions - it's quite possible that it would not work out of the box. Having a parallel installation would most probably be a better choice. Mojca |
From: George N. W. I. <gn...@gm...> - 2009-01-14 15:00:53
|
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:14 AM, Mojca Miklavec <moj...@gm...> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:15 AM, Joel C. Salomon wrote: >> I'm running MiKTeX 2.7 and I'd like to experiment with the new >> ConTeXt/luaTeX betas a bit. How can I best do that without interfering >> with my MiKTeX installation? >> >> I am thinking to add a new texmf tree using the MiKTeX Settings >> program, and install the "minimals" there. Is that the best idea? >> >> Should I remove the ConTeXt packages from my MiKTeX installation before I start? > > Hello Joel, > > Remove ConTeXt packages? MikTeX removed them from repository back in > May, so if ConTeXt still works for you on MikTeX out-of-the-box, > you're just lucky. I would leave ConTeXt there as it is. That is what I have, but of course that misses luatex. > I have been running MikTeX and standalone ConTeXt distribution in > parallel for a very long time before. All you need to do is to extract > & run > http://minimals.contextgarden.net/setup/context-setup-mswin.zip > > Then create a file pragmatex.bat (the name doesn't really matter) with > this content: > > C:\Programs\context\tex\setuptex.bat C:\Programs\context\tex > > and make sure that this file is visible by PATH. You can safely > continue using MikTeX. If you want to invoke the stand-alone > distribution, just execute > > pragmatex > > from the command-line and all the subsequent calls to texexec/context > will use files from the stand-alone tree. > > Alternatively you could probably just put all the needed binaries in > place of MikTeX binaries, but you would need to keep updating both > ConTeXt and LuaTeX regularly, and you might need to keep asking > several questions - it's quite possible that it would not work out of > the box. Having a parallel installation would most probably be a > better choice. Replacing miktex binaries will almost certainly break miktex, as the command-line options are not the same, so if you want to continue using miktex, the parallel route is much safer. Mojca's approach works well if you stay with the command-line interface. If you use an editor like WinEDT or emacs for the ability to run tex from menus things get hairy -- if you start them the usual windows way they will end up with the miktex paths, and will also use miktex command-lines. Emacs has hooks to adjust the path used for subshells, but normally those are the global startup files, so not that helpful if you want to use emacs in multiple (e.g., miktex and context configurations. If you have a nice fast modern computer, there is also the option of creating a small virtual machine to run your secondary TeX system without risk of conflicts. -- George N. White III <aa...@ch...> Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia |