Now is the time for all... (Was: A simple project.)

[Maurice Diamantini <Maurice.Diamantini@ensta.fr>]

Now is the time for all...
   ... non Context user to be able to use ConTeXt without
   becomming TeX expert



Following the remark from Dirar about finding the last texlive
distrib, I think the Context system deserves the right of
being a full independant distribution which can be used independently
from the other standard xTeX distributions (e.g. TeTeX, Texlive, ..)

The mytex system proposed by context is a first step in that direction,
but it require a setup that strongly perturbate a concurent use of 
LaTeX.

So, I propose that besides the standard upgrade cont-tmf.zip for 
context,
Pragma propose à **independant** "context" distribution which :
1 - ***doesn't use*** the standard kpath environment variables
2 - anticipate the addition for new architecture
     (eg. "linux" isn't an architecture name, use "powerpc-linux" 
instead)


What do need ConTeXt for itself ?
1 - an pdfetex (or pdfXXXtex)
2 - some fontes
3 - perl, ruby, tcl, ...
4 - Metapost
5 - the context "TeX macro files"

As ConTeXt does improve much frequently than any standard LaTeX
distribution, I suggest that it is easier to adapt the ConTeXt system
to tetex from time to time (e.g. one time in a year) and becomme free
to change the ConTeXt arborescence following the feeling from Hans.

So that it will always be possible for a LaTeX user to download
a full independant ConTeXt distribution, just source one of the
provided setup.sh or setup.csh files, and run either the standard
texlive old distribution, or its new dowloaded ConTeXt distribution
without conflict.

The objective is to had a line such
source /xxx/context/setup.sh
in my bashrc without worying if I (or other xTeX user) have to do
either LaTeX or ConTeXt writing.




Le 17 nov. 04, à 00:57, Dirar BOUGATEF a écrit :

> I am wiling to do so, but i see that Texlive hasn't changed since 
> 2003, and this is already the version i have installed 2 months ago.
>
> Is there a fresher version and does anyone knows the date where 
> Texlive structure changed.

I second this question.
I look for the texlive2004 too, but didn't found it.

-- Maurice Diamantini