[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Adding preview-latex support to Fedora Extra pack
Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Adding preview-latex support to Fedora Extra package of auctex
Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:19:17 +0200
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
"Jonathan Underwood" <address@hidden> writes:
> 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
That is a strange use of the word "yes". I'd call that "no", unless
you are talking about a CVS tarball instead of the last released one.
> - and mostly just used what was in there, tweaking what was needed
> to work for fedora.
The spec file from AUCTeX CVS is not supposed to need tweaking.
>> 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?
Here is the respective package from the CVS spec file:
Summary: Enhanced TeX modes for GNU Emacs
Requires: emacs >= 21
Obsoletes: ge_auc emacs-auctex auctex preview-latex-common
Conflicts: emacspeak < 18
Note that our RPM does _not_ provide preview-latex-common (which LyX
expects) since it does not install preview.sty into the teTeX tree.
For this purpose, there should be a separate, independent package in
the spec file, which isn't the case now.
> 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?
(info "(auctex) Advice for package providers")
Note that we do not follow our own advice with regard to the
preview-tetex package: it is still missing. That makes it impossible
to run LyX in parallel with current versions of AUCTeX and teTeX 2.0.
I don't know how many installations of teTeX 2.0 are around, however.
> 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).
Wrong in the version _I_ was talking about since preview.sty is not
installed into the teTeX tree, so texhash is unnecessary.
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum