* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated
@ 2005-03-04 13:44 Steffen Wolfrum
2005-03-04 13:49 ` Mark Smith
2005-03-04 14:07 ` ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated Gerben Wierda
0 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread
From: Steffen Wolfrum @ 2005-03-04 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote:
> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly
> i-Packages):
>
> -- One --
Yes, a great work this ever up-to-date TeX distro!
-- Two --
Steffen
P.S. Although up to now I always installed Hans new versions directly
in my local tree
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated 2005-03-04 13:44 ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated Steffen Wolfrum @ 2005-03-04 13:49 ` Mark Smith 2005-03-04 15:58 ` OSX ConTeXt users inventory (was: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated) Maurice Diamantini 2005-03-04 16:03 ` ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated David Wooten 2005-03-04 14:07 ` ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated Gerben Wierda 1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Mark Smith @ 2005-03-04 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) Steffen Wolfrum wrote: >Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote: > >> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly >> i-Packages): >> >> -- One -- > -- Two -- -- Three -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: OSX ConTeXt users inventory (was: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated) 2005-03-04 13:49 ` Mark Smith @ 2005-03-04 15:58 ` Maurice Diamantini 2005-03-04 16:03 ` ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated David Wooten 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Maurice Diamantini @ 2005-03-04 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw) Cc: Maurice Diamantini Le 4 mars 05, à 14:49, Mark Smith a écrit : >> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt >>>>>>>>>> (and possibly i-Packages): >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- One -- ... --cut some bilions increments (;-) -- ONE more ! I use context from the last texlive (linux and mac osx) -- Maurice Diamantini ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated 2005-03-04 13:49 ` Mark Smith 2005-03-04 15:58 ` OSX ConTeXt users inventory (was: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated) Maurice Diamantini @ 2005-03-04 16:03 ` David Wooten 2005-03-04 16:29 ` Thomas A.Schmitz 2005-03-04 16:48 ` Adam Lindsay 1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: David Wooten @ 2005-03-04 16:03 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Mark Smith wrote: > Steffen Wolfrum wrote: > >> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote: >> >>> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly >>> i-Packages): >>> >>> -- One -- > >> -- Two -- > > -- Three -- -- Four -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated 2005-03-04 16:03 ` ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated David Wooten @ 2005-03-04 16:29 ` Thomas A.Schmitz 2005-03-04 19:50 ` Alan Bowen 2005-03-04 16:48 ` Adam Lindsay 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Thomas A.Schmitz @ 2005-03-04 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:03 PM, David Wooten wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Mark Smith wrote: > >> Steffen Wolfrum wrote: >> >>> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly >>>> i-Packages): >>>> >>>> -- One -- >> >>> -- Two -- >> >> -- Three -- > > -- Four -- > -- Five -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated 2005-03-04 16:29 ` Thomas A.Schmitz @ 2005-03-04 19:50 ` Alan Bowen 2005-03-04 21:43 ` Steve Peter 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Alan Bowen @ 2005-03-04 19:50 UTC (permalink / raw) Six On Mar 4, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Thomas A.Schmitz wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:03 PM, David Wooten wrote: > >> >> On Mar 4, 2005, at 5:49 AM, Mark Smith wrote: >> >>> Steffen Wolfrum wrote: >>> >>>> Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly >>>>> i-Packages): >>>>> >>>>> -- One -- >>> >>>> -- Two -- >>> >>> -- Three -- >> >> -- Four -- >> > -- Five -- > > _______________________________________________ > ntg-context mailing list > ntg-context@ntg.nl > http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated 2005-03-04 19:50 ` Alan Bowen @ 2005-03-04 21:43 ` Steve Peter 2005-03-05 9:31 ` h h extern 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Steve Peter @ 2005-03-04 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mar 4, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Alan Bowen wrote: >> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly >> i-Packages): > Six I guess that makes me lucky 7. Wouldn't it be better to do this as a survey question on the ConTeXt wiki? Steve ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated 2005-03-04 21:43 ` Steve Peter @ 2005-03-05 9:31 ` h h extern 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: h h extern @ 2005-03-05 9:31 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Peter wrote: > > On Mar 4, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Alan Bowen wrote: > >>> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly >>> i-Packages): >> >> Six > > > I guess that makes me lucky 7. > > Wouldn't it be better to do this as a survey question on the ConTeXt wiki? indeed, since as far as i could see, there were multiple no's 4, so that gives you a higher number Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated 2005-03-04 16:03 ` ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated David Wooten 2005-03-04 16:29 ` Thomas A.Schmitz @ 2005-03-04 16:48 ` Adam Lindsay 2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-04 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw) David Wooten said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 08:03:17 -0800: >>>> Let's count the guys that use OSX with ConTeXt (and possibly >>>> i-Packages): >>>> >>>> -- One -- >> >>> -- Two -- >> >> -- Three -- > >-- Four -- -- Vijf -- -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept. atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 16:48 ` Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-04 17:13 ` Matthias Weber 2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-04 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) Hello, after the recent discussion of ConTeXt processing (some) files 4 times as often under OS X than elsewhere, I decided to upgrade to the most recent beta and run a speed comparison on notes I am writing. To my dismay, here are the results: Old version: ConTeXt ver: 2004.11.23 fmt: 2004.12.16 TeXExec 5.2.3 total run time : 324 seconds New version: ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4 total run time : 416 seconds And I was hoping for a speed increase by a factor of 4 :( (I renamed the TeX source for both runs) Of course I am completely ignorant about the internals, but at least I didn't expect that it would run slower. Best wishes, Matthias (#7) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay 2005-03-04 18:35 ` Matthias Weber 2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen 2005-03-09 8:09 ` Patrick Gundlach 2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-04 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthias Weber said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:13:50 -0500: >Old version: > >ConTeXt ver: 2004.11.23 fmt: 2004.12.16 >TeXExec 5.2.3 > >total run time : 324 seconds > > >New version: > >ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4 > total run time : 416 seconds > >And I was hoping for a speed increase by a factor of 4 :( >(I renamed the TeX source for both runs) > >Of course I am completely ignorant about the internals, but at least >I didn't expect that it would run slower. Were both runs from the same point--were they "virgin" runs? Did you precede the texexec command with a "texutil --purgeall" command, for example? -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept. atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-04 18:35 ` Matthias Weber 2005-03-04 19:33 ` Adam Lindsay 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-04 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Adam Lindsay wrote: > Matthias Weber said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 12:13:50 -0500: > >> Old version: >> >> ConTeXt ver: 2004.11.23 fmt: 2004.12.16 >> TeXExec 5.2.3 >> >> total run time : 324 seconds >> >> >> New version: >> >> ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4 >> total run time : 416 seconds >> >> And I was hoping for a speed increase by a factor of 4 :( >> (I renamed the TeX source for both runs) >> >> Of course I am completely ignorant about the internals, but at least >> I didn't expect that it would run slower. > > Were both runs from the same point--were they "virgin" runs? > Did you precede the texexec command with a "texutil --purgeall" > command, > for example? > -- > My TeX source file is a single file with images. Most of the TeX-work is done for positioning floats I think (figures, tables) and for creating backgrounds. So I just renamed the TeX file for both runs into new file names, and upated TeX for the second run. I can redo the experiment on a clone machine which hasn't been updated yet, but I don't know whether "texutil --purgeall" will change anything. But if you tell me that it will, I'll give it a try. Matthias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 18:35 ` Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-04 19:33 ` Adam Lindsay 2005-03-05 9:17 ` h h extern 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-04 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthias Weber said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:35:13 -0500: >> Were both runs from the same point--were they "virgin" runs? >> Did you precede the texexec command with a "texutil --purgeall" >> command, >> for example? >> -- >> > > >My TeX source file is a single file with images. Most of the TeX-work >is done for positioning >floats I think (figures, tables) and for creating backgrounds. > >So I just renamed the TeX file for both runs into new file names, and >upated TeX for the second run. >I can redo the experiment on a clone machine which hasn't been updated >yet, but I don't >know whether "texutil --purgeall" will change anything. But if you tell >me that it will, I'll give it a try. Hmm. If you renamed the file for each run, then ignore that advice. I don't think that would be it, then. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Adam T. Lindsay, Computing Dept. atl@comp.lancs.ac.uk Lancaster University, InfoLab21 +44(0)1524/510.514 Lancaster, LA1 4WA, UK Fax:+44(0)1524/510.492 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 19:33 ` Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-05 9:17 ` h h extern 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: h h extern @ 2005-03-05 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) Adam Lindsay wrote: > Matthias Weber said this at Fri, 4 Mar 2005 13:35:13 -0500: > > >>>Were both runs from the same point--were they "virgin" runs? >>>Did you precede the texexec command with a "texutil --purgeall" >>>command, >>>for example? >>>-- >>> >> >> >>My TeX source file is a single file with images. Most of the TeX-work >>is done for positioning >>floats I think (figures, tables) and for creating backgrounds. >> >>So I just renamed the TeX file for both runs into new file names, and >>upated TeX for the second run. >>I can redo the experiment on a clone machine which hasn't been updated >>yet, but I don't >>know whether "texutil --purgeall" will change anything. But if you tell >>me that it will, I'll give it a try. > > > Hmm. If you renamed the file for each run, then ignore that advice. I > don't think that would be it, then. can you make a small file that runs slower with the new versions? sometimes these things are not related to context, but to your tex tree: the bigger the slower, as well as settings in texmf.cnf Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber 2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay @ 2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen 2005-03-04 18:43 ` Matthias Weber 2005-03-09 8:09 ` Patrick Gundlach 2 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Hans Hagen @ 2005-03-04 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthias Weber wrote: > Hello, > > after the recent discussion of ConTeXt processing (some) files 4 times > as often under OS X > than elsewhere, I decided to upgrade to the most recent beta and run a > speed comparison > on notes I am writing. To my dismay, here are the results: > > Old version: > > ConTeXt ver: 2004.11.23 fmt: 2004.12.16 > TeXExec 5.2.3 > > total run time : 324 seconds > > > New version: > > ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4 > total run time : 416 seconds > > And I was hoping for a speed increase by a factor of 4 :( > (I renamed the TeX source for both runs) > > Of course I am completely ignorant about the internals, but at least > I didn't expect that it would run slower. how many runs? normally context only becomes faster, so i wonder why it is so much slower did you compare the logs? Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen @ 2005-03-04 18:43 ` Matthias Weber 2005-03-05 9:20 ` h h extern 0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-04 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw) On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:24 PM, Hans Hagen wrote: > Matthias Weber wrote: >> Hello, >> after the recent discussion of ConTeXt processing (some) files 4 >> times as often under OS X >> than elsewhere, I decided to upgrade to the most recent beta and run >> a speed comparison >> on notes I am writing. To my dismay, here are the results: >> Old version: >> ConTeXt ver: 2004.11.23 fmt: 2004.12.16 >> TeXExec 5.2.3 >> total run time : 324 seconds >> New version: >> ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4 >> total run time : 416 seconds >> And I was hoping for a speed increase by a factor of 4 :( >> (I renamed the TeX source for both runs) >> Of course I am completely ignorant about the internals, but at least >> I didn't expect that it would run slower. > > how many runs? > > normally context only becomes faster, so i wonder why it is so much > slower > > did you compare the logs? > > Hans > How do I count the number of runs? I mean, do I have to count, or does it tell me somewhere so that I can look it up? The log files are lengthy, maybe the memory usage is of interest: Run A: 12246 strings out of 64833 221604 string characters out of 691267 4755370 words of memory out of 6327867 43583 multiletter control sequences out of 10000+50000 21681 words of font info for 72 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000 104 hyphenation exceptions out of 1000 58i,30n,104p,1295b,3134s stack positions out of 1500i,500n,5000p,200000b,5000s 6067 PDF objects out of 300000 857 named destinations out of 131072 956 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 65536 Run B: Here is how much of TeX's memory you used: 12374 strings out of 62208 224135 string characters out of 638791 4793260 words of memory out of 6324620 46119 multiletter control sequences out of 10000+50000 164026 words of font info for 78 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000 144 hyphenation exceptions out of 1000 58i,30n,104p,1295b,3136s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,6000p,200000b,40000s PDF statistics: 6073 PDF objects out of 300000 857 named destinations out of 131072 956 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 65536 The 'words of font info' (whatever it is) looks kind of strange to me. Matthias ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 18:43 ` Matthias Weber @ 2005-03-05 9:20 ` h h extern 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: h h extern @ 2005-03-05 9:20 UTC (permalink / raw) Matthias Weber wrote: > How do I count the number of runs? I mean, do I have to count, or does > it tell me somewhere so that I can look it up? texexec reports it > The log files are lengthy, maybe the memory usage is of interest: > > Run A: > > 12246 strings out of 64833 > 221604 string characters out of 691267 > 4755370 words of memory out of 6327867 > 43583 multiletter control sequences out of 10000+50000 because we preload quite some encodings (maybe i will switch to delayed loading) we need more has space now; just set it to 70000+ in texmf.cnf > 21681 words of font info for 72 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000 > 164026 words of font info for 78 fonts, out of 2000000 for 2000 i wonder why these differences ...6 big fonts ? do you load extra fonts? Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber 2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay 2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen @ 2005-03-09 8:09 ` Patrick Gundlach 2 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Patrick Gundlach @ 2005-03-09 8:09 UTC (permalink / raw) Hello Matthias, > after the recent discussion of ConTeXt processing (some) files 4 times > as often under OS X > than elsewhere, I decided to upgrade to the most recent beta and run a > speed comparison > on notes I am writing. To my dismay, here are the results: > ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4 > total run time : 416 seconds Our discussion was finished 2005.03.03 so you might have the old (buggy) version. Do you get the same amount of tex runs on both systems? Patrick -- ConTeXt wiki: http://contextgarden.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated 2005-03-04 13:44 ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated Steffen Wolfrum 2005-03-04 13:49 ` Mark Smith @ 2005-03-04 14:07 ` Gerben Wierda 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Gerben Wierda @ 2005-03-04 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw) > Uwe Koloska <koloska@voiceinterconnect.de> wrote: > P.S. Although up to now I always installed Hans new versions directly > in my local tree The ConTeXt-updater i-Package installs in the local tree as well, not overwriting the base version in the main teTeX texmf tree. That way you can go back to the version in the main tree by uninstalling the ConTeXt updater. During a TeX i-Package configure phase, the i-Package will detect a ConTeXt in the local tree and report both versions and offer the possibility to deinstall the one in the local tree as well. G ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta?
@ 2005-03-04 20:13 Steffen Wolfrum
2005-03-05 9:15 ` h h extern
0 siblings, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread
From: Steffen Wolfrum @ 2005-03-04 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
Matthias Weber <matweber@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> after the recent discussion of ConTeXt processing (some) files 4 times
> as often under OS X
> than elsewhere, I decided to upgrade to the most recent beta and run a
> speed comparison
> on notes I am writing. To my dismay, here are the results:
>
> Old version:
>
> ConTeXt ver: 2004.11.23 fmt: 2004.12.16
> TeXExec 5.2.3
>
> total run time : 324 seconds
>
>
> New version:
>
> ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02 fmt: 2005.3.4
> total run time : 416 seconds
>
> And I was hoping for a speed increase by a factor of 4 :(
> (I renamed the TeX source for both runs)
As far as I can judge the current version does not yet benefit from
our discussion concerning the runs under OSX.
"ConTeXt ver: 2005.03.02" (pragma site calls it 2005-02-03 [?] 15:19
) doesn't include the changes that Patrick (no more "8 runs") found
out:
sub FlushFiles
{ print TUO "%\n" . "% $Program / Files\n" . "%\n" ;
foreach $File (sort keys %Files)
{ print TUO "% $File ($Files{$File})\n" }
print TUO "%\n" ;
$NOfFiles = keys %Files ;
"texutil.pl" is untouched.
I guess Hans is still verifying this perl hassle?
Steffen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? 2005-03-04 20:13 No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Steffen Wolfrum @ 2005-03-05 9:15 ` h h extern 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: h h extern @ 2005-03-05 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw) Steffen Wolfrum wrote: > "texutil.pl" is untouched. > > I guess Hans is still verifying this perl hassle? i changed it, not sure if i uploaded that version; the problem is that i'm now on too slow lines; next week i'm at eurotex 2005 i'll see if i can use the adsl line there for uploading. Hans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hans Hagen | PRAGMA ADE Ridderstraat 27 | 8061 GH Hasselt | The Netherlands tel: 038 477 53 69 | fax: 038 477 53 74 | www.pragma-ade.com | www.pragma-pod.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-03-09 8:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-03-04 13:44 ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated Steffen Wolfrum 2005-03-04 13:49 ` Mark Smith 2005-03-04 15:58 ` OSX ConTeXt users inventory (was: ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated) Maurice Diamantini 2005-03-04 16:03 ` ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated David Wooten 2005-03-04 16:29 ` Thomas A.Schmitz 2005-03-04 19:50 ` Alan Bowen 2005-03-04 21:43 ` Steve Peter 2005-03-05 9:31 ` h h extern 2005-03-04 16:48 ` Adam Lindsay 2005-03-04 17:13 ` No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Matthias Weber 2005-03-04 17:20 ` Adam Lindsay 2005-03-04 18:35 ` Matthias Weber 2005-03-04 19:33 ` Adam Lindsay 2005-03-05 9:17 ` h h extern 2005-03-04 17:24 ` Hans Hagen 2005-03-04 18:43 ` Matthias Weber 2005-03-05 9:20 ` h h extern 2005-03-09 8:09 ` Patrick Gundlach 2005-03-04 14:07 ` ConTeXt-updater i-Package updated Gerben Wierda 2005-03-04 20:13 No performance improvement under OS X with new beta? Steffen Wolfrum 2005-03-05 9:15 ` h h extern
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).