[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[AUCTeX-devel] Re: Adding preview-latex support to Fedora Extra package
[AUCTeX-devel] Re: Adding preview-latex support to Fedora Extra package of auctex
Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:54:08 +0100
On 24/04/06, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
> Mail to the list arrives even from non-members, after I moderate it
> through. And the latency is not worse than writing to myself.
> Have you taken an actual look at the current spec file from AUCTeX
> itself in CVS or the latest "SuSE" src RPM package? It reportedly
> works with Fedora, too.
I looked at the spec file included in the tarball, yes - and mostly
just used what was in there, tweaking what was needed to work for
> I have glanced through the Fedora Extras spec file, since we don't do
> a too convincing job of putting our "Advice for package providers" in
> the AUCTeX documentation to work in our own spec file. However, it
> seems to me like Fedora's own spec file does an even worse job even
> after your fixes. And you are missing out on providing a lot of
> features that are expected to be available on Fedora when
> preview-latex (or the LaTeX part of it) is installed (for the sake of
> LyX et al), and on obsoletions and conflicts (such as a preexisting
> preview package). And the package will conflict with teTeX 3.0 which
> has its own preview.sty.
OK, thanks for the pointers on the conflicts. Could you elaborate on
what functionality we're not exposing though?
Regarding the preview.sty shipped with tetex 3.0 - what do you
recommend is the best approach here - is the version shipped with
auctex considered the more up to date?
One thing I did notice is that the spec file from the tarball didn't
call texhash on installation such that preview wouldn't work - it
would be well worth adding that (if it hasn't been already).
> So before you invest further work into this, you might want to
> consider looking at the existing spec file in development (or the SuSE
> source RPM we provide on AUCTeX's download area which has a slightly
> more up to date specfile than is present in the last released
> tarball), and also the guidelines for packaging AUCTeX we put together
> in its documentation, since we already _have_ invested time and work
> and thought in that matter and there is little point in not making use
> of it.
Will do - thanks for the pointer.