Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Missing bits and pieces...

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2005-07-20) writes:
>
>> We have an install-contrib target for bib-cite.el and tex-jp.el, and
>> the undocumented tex-fptex.el (as opposed to tex-mik.el).
>>
>> That's pretty much inconsistent.  I think we should include everything
>> in a normal installation (yes, this also means tex-mik.el and
>> tex-fptex.el on a Unix-type installation currently), and the "contrib"
>> distinction does not seem to make sense to me.  I think I'd also want
>> to include tex-jp.el even on non-MULE XEmacs installations where
>> tex-jp.elc can't be generated.
>
> I'm mostly with you.  But what use are tex-mik.el and tex-fptex.el in
> a Unix-style environment?

Completeness, example code, straightforwardness in installation (just
make install); and last time I looked, it was not prohibited to share
the Emacs tree via Samba or a suitable partition.  That's why it is in
/usr/share and not /usr/lib.

> If it's easy to determine if AUCTeX is being built in/for such an
> environment, they could be excluded from the installation.  But as
> they are small files it's not a big deal to leave them in in case
> such a test is hard to do or error-prone.
>
> BTW, regarding tex-jp.el: What happens if tex-jp.elc is included in an
> RPM package or something like this and loaded by a non-MULE XEmacs?
> Will this throw an error?

I don't think tex-jp is loaded without asking for it, so I don't
really care.

>> I am not conclusive about what documentation to include in the
>> packages.  After Ralf has rearranged the doc directory, recompiling
>> the texi sources is trivial even without Makefile.  Should people
>> be able to compile a printable manual?  Or should we just include
>> the info file?  How about the plain text stuff?
>>
>> People in the States will need to have reference sheet and so
>> compiled with a different paper size if we include any PS or PDF.
>> So maybe just include the sources?
>
> In general we should include it completely in an accessible and
> neutral format (e.g. not for a specific paper size).  That means
> besides the info format, the manual should be included either as
> plain text or HTML.

Uh what?  What use is plain text?  For screen reading, info is more
suited, for printing, PostScript or PDF.

> The refcard is somewhat special.  How about providing PDF files both
> in A4 and letter format for it?

Sounds reasonable.

I am still oscillating over the package layout.  IIRC, we don't really
need to know where the texmf tree sits at compile time since kpathsea
can figure this out at run time, right?  So maybe the package
organization would just need

preview-tetex-styles (independent from AUCTeX!)

auctex-emacs

auctex-xemacs (installs like an XEmacs package, thus has no files in
common with auctex-emacs)

auctex-tetex (?) installs cron scripts regenerating the auto style
files regularly, and does so whenever auctex or tetex get updated.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum