eho@clarity.Princeton.EDU (Eric Ho) (09/03/89)
OK, I've posted 2 messages (one to tex and one to comp.text) yesterday about problems in building the TeX distribution tape that I recently got from U of Washington. In particular, it was about errors found in building ctex/extra.c, complaining about typedef's in ../site.h and tex.h. It turns out that the '#include "tex.h"' line in extra.c shouldn't be there at all (as pointed out to me by Tim Morgan). I've just uncommented that line half an hour ago and just compiled that file (giving the same flag as specified in the ctex/Makefile of course) and it compiled fine. Tim went on to say that his later version of web2c doesn't have that #include line in extra.c anymore otherwise the build will get choked like I did. I now have serious validity questions about my TeX distribution tape -- who knows how many road blocks I'm going to encounter later down the road. I doled out some $100 for the distribution tape from Washington about 1~2 months ago. The question now is that is it safe for me to continue or should I get a newer version of web2c elsewhere (from UCI ?, where ?) and if I do need to get a newer version of web2c then how should I garf that newer version of web2c into my existing tex source tree -- I mean my existing source tree got all other kinds of stuff -- from Bibtex, latex, slitex, dvi drivers, dvi previewers, MF, ..etc.. and I want these stuff. Phew !! I'm surprised that my distribution tape is not quite up to par. -- Eric Ho Cognitive Science Lab., Princeton University voice = 609-987-2987 email = eho@confidence.princeton.edu 609-987-2819 (messages) eho@bogey.princeton.edu regards. -eric-