[tex-live] Is TeXk from TeXlive 2003 TRIP certified?

[Olaf Weber]

Petr Olsak writes:

> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Fabrice Popineau wrote:

>> > I checked out this part properly:
>> 
>> You need to use the texmf.cnf provided in the texk/web2c/trip directory
>> of the source tree, not the default one.

> In another words: the default TeXk with default configuration file is not
> TRIP compatible. It is out of my interrest that the TeXk binary is able to
> be TRIP compatible by some special configuration file and some special
> operation environment when the default configuration is not TRIP
> compatible. This was not the reason of TRIP test.

> It is your intend to make TeXk with default configuration file TRIP
> incompatible? Why?

Read up on the trip test, please.  You're supposed to either build a
special-purpose binary to run the test, or have a way to "tune"
various parameters of a generic binary to values that make it
completely useless for any real work.  (You're hurt by the memory size
differences in particular.)

>>> PS. The difference in last digists in dvitype output is not explained
>>> by this.
>> 
>> No, but it has always been regarded as acceptable.

> Yes it is acceptable, but why _the same_ operating system, _the same_ TeX
> distribution (web2c only in different versions) has these differences?

I find the move from 'w' to 'x' commands also interesting.  It
suggests something inside is doing things in a different fashion.

> Yes, it is acceptable, but the two pages lost by TeXk (14 pages versus 16
> pages) are not acceptable.

Line lengths may be the issue there.  Do an eyeball compare of the
results first to see whether that can be issue.

-- 
Olaf Weber

               (This space left blank for technical reasons.)