[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Updating the GNU ELPA package of AucTeX

From: Tassilo Horn
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Updating the GNU ELPA package of AucTeX
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 09:34:18 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux)

Stefan Monnier <address@hidden> writes:

Hi Stefan,

> The GNU ELPA package of AucTeX is ridiculously old.


> As part of updating, I'd like to "streamline" the process, which
> mostly involves reducing the difference between the code in the `elpa'
> branch and the code in the official auctex repository.

I've hoped that with the new Git ELPA, we could just checkout the
savannah auctex repository as submodule, and then add some hacks to the
makefiles to produce tarballs suitable for ELPA.  Won't work, no?

I mean, you can run auctex just fine just by

  $ ./configure
  $ make

and then setting TeX-data-directory to the auctex checkout directory.
Doesn't that mean that the ELPA build could just build auctex, package
the files meant for distribution preserving the repository directory
structure, and setting TeX-data-directory to

Ah, btw, I think I've hunted down all past contributors that hadn't
signed a CA already.  So now I think there's no file left that has to be

> So, the real problems are:
> * Preview subdir:
>   I see two clean and easy ways to deal with:
>   - Split it (again) from AucTeX.

I'd prefer to keep it in auctex.

>   - "mv preview/* ./; rmdir preview"

I could live with that.  But why is a subdirectory a problem in the
first place?

> * The .texi files:
>   The problem is not specific to auctex, so I'll have to come up with
>   a solution anyway, probably building the .info files during
>   construction of the ELPA package.

If the build process would just run make, they'd be built.

> * The .dtx files:
>   Here, building the .sty during construction of the ELPA package is
>   not really an option.

No LaTeX installed on the machine, or what's the matter?

>   So I see the following ways out:
>   - Include the generated .sty file in the `elpa' branch (with the
>     usual problems associated with VCS control of auto-generated files).
>   - Build the .sty when *installing* the package (when package.el
>     installs a package, it does various things additionally to unpacking
>     the tarball, and it could be made to run tex as well).
>   - Build the .sty lazily just before the user needs it.
>   Does one of those options sound good to you?

I don't really have a preference.  The options all sound bad compared to
just making running "make" with its LaTeX-deps possible.


reply via email to

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