[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

From: David Kastrup
Subject: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: preview-latex 0.9.1 and AUCTeX 11.whatever
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 04:50:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Jan-Åke Larsson <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>>  Really, Jan-Åke: I might have messed up a bit in the actual
>>  implementation, but it really was something that was not completely
>>  done out of malice and lunacy.
> Hmm, I seem to have missed out on some bad things that have
> happened.

Well, it has not exactly been a secret that installing
preview-latex.el was manual work, that we had frequent Windows path
problems and a few other things.  It was probably a bit of a surprise
that I decided to do something about it.

> Have I been unsubscribed to some list without me noticing? Doesn't
> matter, we've changed lists now...
> (One thing that worries me is that people installing 0.9 will get
> preview in version-specific emacs directories that might shadow a
> 0.9.1 install in non-version-specific directories)

This definitely is worrisome.  It would add some complication to check
that no shadowing occurs, but not very much, I think.  However, if
somebody has a user-local preview installation and then tries to
configure for a site-wide installation, the shadow check would barf at

>>  I checked in some code right now. The checks should work out now.
>>  aclocal.m4, like it is done now for emacsprefix1 and emacsprefix2,
>>  is probably the wrong place to call the stuff, as it would
>>  probably rather belong into where it should get used
>>  for setting up the paths, but at least you can take a look at what
>>  is intended.
> I'll do that. I'm at home now and cannot really get anything done
> tonight (choir practice). I still think that this jumping back and
> forth from elisp to shell only complicates things.

Try to see whether you can find the current code (I checked in
something that apparently works, but without the shadowing check)
tolerable.  I did not after all switch the order of checks depending
on whether we have a default or explicit prefix.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]