[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Ralf Angeli
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Missing bits and pieces...
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:08:22 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

* David Kastrup (2005-07-21) writes:

> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>> I'm mostly with you.  But what use are tex-mik.el and tex-fptex.el in
>> a Unix-style environment?
> Completeness,

I wouldn't consider an AUCTeX installation on a Unix-style stystem
incomplete if it was missing files specific to Windows.

> 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.

Okay, those are more than enough reasons for including them.

>> 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.

Aren't you just a little bit curious? (c;

>> 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.

Plain text can serve both screen reading and printing.  Besides, you
don't need a special viewer for it and can print on arbitrary page
sizes.  It's not the best format for either output device, I know.
But maybe it's better than including PostScript or PDF files in
various page sizes.  HTML might be an acceptable compromise if nobody
has a better idea.

>> 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?

Yes.  We locate files in TeX trees with this function:

(defun TeX-macro-global-internal (latex search default)
  "Return directories containing the site's TeX macro and style files.

> 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)

I guess this means there won't be packages built with
--without-texmf-dir but users may choose to install preview.sty
independently via preview-tetex-styles?

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

Why not do this in the respective (X)Emacs packages?


reply via email to

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