Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Anybody out there?

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> a) RPM specs need to be created.  The current RPM is Emacs-only and
> includes everything and the kitchen sink.  The README and INSTALL
> files from preview-latex and AUCTeX conflict: somebody needs to take a
> look at what %doc actually does and fix that.  I am still ambiguous
> about package distribution, but I think I prefer the
> --without-texmf-dir setting.  This means duplication of the LaTeX
> stuff.  I can't think of a sane scheme to avoid that except have
> separate auctex-emacs-no-styles, auctex-xemacs-no-styles and
> preview-styles packages as an alternative to auctex-emacs and
> auctex-xemacs, with the obvious necessary conflicts and dependencies.
> Then you can choose to install the styles in your distribution's
> standard place (and make them generally available) or skip this and
> use the integrated styles.  If your distribution comes with its own
> preview files in the texmf tree, you would likely be forced to use the
> auctex-emacs and auctex-xemacs packages unless we make preview-styles
> install into the site-local tree.  Since installing preview-styles is
> a fine-grained installation decision, this might actually be less
> terrible than it sounds at first: a site administrator choosing to
> install his own site-wide styles can "just" remove preview-styles
> modulo dependencies.
>
> In a similar vein, the auctex-xemacs and auctex-xemacs-no-styles
> packages would probably need to go into the site-packages tree in
> order to shadow the sumo tarball.  We have that already, I think.
>
> Better names and schemes welcome.  Who implements this gets to choose.

Ok, I think that we probably should have something like
preview-styles-tetex2 (conflicts with tetex-3.*, provides preview-styles)
preview-styles-tetex3 (provides preview-styles, obsoletes
  preview-styles-tetex2)

No, this does not work out.  It would make preview-styles-tetex3
install over preview-styles-tetex2 even when one is using tetex2, and
strictly speaking, it does not conflict with tetex2.  And tetex3
should provide preview-styles probably, too.  As well as gazillion of
other styles.  Looks like we can't do much sensibly except just have
preview-styles install into /usr/local/share/texmf regardless of teTeX
version.  Sigh.  Or was that /usr/share/texmf.local?  Should we
require tetex? Probably.  We can't really know where other packages
will be looking for local style files.

auctex-emacs (includes its own styles packages not conflicting with
preview-styles-*)

auctex-emacs-nostyles (requires preview-styles to be provided
elsewhere).

We probably should take a look what people providing just the style
files have chosen to call their packages: I think that LyX needs such
packages.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum