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

[Ralf Angeli]

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

> It might also be possible to compile on a Unix system an AUCTeX tree
> for systems like TeXlive.

I checked something in and would appreciate people cross-checking that
I did not get some dependencies of the targets wrong.  In addition
people with non-MULE XEmacs installations could check that building
and installing is still working for them.

> I think that HTML is ok for our online pages, but it seems strange to
> use for included docs.

It might be strange but it is not uncommon:
$ find /usr/share/doc -name \*.html | wc -l
3045

I really don't have a strong opinion here.  For me both a PDF file or
an HTML file would be acceptable.  Both have their advantages and
drawbacks.

>> I guess this means there won't be packages built with
>> --without-texmf-dir
>
> Uh, there will be _only_ packages built with --without-texmf-dir, you
> mean?

Well, if there is an extra package including the LaTeX style file,
there would not be an obligation to include the style file in the
respective (X)Emacs packages.  Of course including it can spare people
some hassle who are working with TeX systems not covered by the extra
package.  So I guess you are right in building every package with
--without-texmf-dir.

-- 
Ralf