[AUCTeX-devel] Re: preview-latex 0.9.1 and AUCTeX 11.whatever

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Well that is why I proposed AUCTEX_PATH_PREFIX gets two explicit 
> arguments to tell it just which variables to set.  So that one does 
> not need to keep setting and resetting $prefix.

Well, with the current EMACS_EXAMINE_INSTALLATION_DIR that is what
you'll need to do. And if we're going to rewrite that, there is no need
to write an AUCTEX_PATH_PREFIX.

> Well, at least we have found that the Emacs-version specific
> site-lisp directory typically appears before the Emacs-version
> neutral site-lisp directory (which makes sense).

Very good.

> > > Not everybody loves the package system.  For those that want to, 
> > > --without-packagedir is an option.
> >
> > Yes. But then they'll get lispdir=no/lisp which may be funny, but
> > not very useful. The lispdir checking will not be done anyway, so
> > they'll need to specify --with-lispdir=/foo.
>
> Sure about that?  If this is so, it might be called a bug.

Indeed.


> > It is not *that* much more work to say 
> > --with-packagelispdir='${lispdir}/foo/bar' The _vital_ bit is that
> > we allow setting it in the first place.
>
> Sigh.  The difference is what happens in auto.el.  Relative paths are
> coded completely different from absolute paths there.

auto.el? ..reading... And lisppackagelispdir is nowhere to be found in
either configure.in nor aclocal.m4...reading... Oh, AC_LISPIFY_DIR
(shudder) are you really serious on using this? It must be a nightmare
to debug.

OK. So relative paths are expanded relative to(...) yes, right: the
location of preview-latex.el ($lispdir according to Makefile), rather
than the directory configure thinks it will be installed into (which is
$lispdir). Hmm, are we talking about relocatable packages here?

/JÅ