Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Repository for RefTeX

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * Ralf Angeli (2007-01-24) writes:
>
>> * David Kastrup (2007-01-23) writes:
>>
>>> Moving files is a problem, so we should compare the organisation of
>>> standalone RefTeX and the Emacs subpart before telling Savannah
>>> hackers where to move things.
>>
>> We should organize files in the RefTeX repository as we deem fit for
>> it as a standalone package similar to AUCTeX.
>
> For the initial import I'd suggest the following layout:
>
> reftex/CHANGES
> reftex/COPYING
> reftex/ChangeLog
> reftex/INSTALL
> reftex/Makefile
> reftex/README
> reftex/lpath.el
> reftex/reftex-auc.el
> reftex/reftex-cite.el
> reftex/reftex-dcr.el
> reftex/reftex-global.el
> reftex/reftex-index.el
> reftex/reftex-parse.el
> reftex/reftex-ref.el
> reftex/reftex-sel.el
> reftex/reftex-toc.el
> reftex/reftex-vars.el
> reftex/reftex.el
> reftex/doc/reftex.texi
>
> Changes compared to the currently downloadable tarball are the
> addition of a ChangeLog file, the placement of reftex.texi into a
> `doc' directory and the removal of the `reftex' info file.

Sounds reasonable.  With regard to Makefile, one will probably at one
point of time take a look of whether it makes sense to do something
using autoconf, but maybe that's a can of worms.

We'll have to see how people get along.  At the moment, there is not
much of a market for RefTeX outside of Emacs CVS and XEmacs Sumo.

> The files CHANGES, INSTALL and README might eventually get removed
> and be generated during the build as in case of AUCTeX.

Possibly.

> We could also consider putting the Lisp files into their own `lisp'
> directory.

Also sounds reasonable.  Seems consistent with a separate doc
directory.  Of course, this might buy us additional Makefiles.  At the
current point of time, I have absolutely no idea what kind of changes
could trouble what kind of users.

-- 
David Kastrup