🚀 go-pugleaf

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-