Re: [AUCTeX-devel] XEmacs packaging/whatever.

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2005-06-18) writes:

> I think what we probably should do is provide something that looks
> like being installed into the package tree, with our version numbers,
> in /usr/share/xemacs/site-packages (or so).  This will, in the case of
> a tetex-based instead of a --without-texmf-dir installation, not be
> perfectly equivalent to installing a binary XEmacs package.

This sounds reasonable.  Alternatively we could just provide a plain
XEmacs package and leave the packaging to the distributions.  Of
course then we would not have a best-practice example for RPM and
similar packages.

> Apropos binary XEmacs package: our pseudo preview-latex packages did
> not install any documentation sources as far as I remember.  If we
> want to mimick what is typical for XEmacs packages, we would have to
> install the doc sources as well.  It is reasonably easy to create a
> binary package that is as source-containing as the XEmacs packages,
> namely missing the necessary build structure for recompiling and
> repackaging the package.
>
> I am not convinced (even after some pretty ugly discussion over that
> on xemacs-beta) that this actually is enough to satisfy the GPL source
> provision, so I have asked the FSF copyright clerk about it.

Would it be a problem to simply dump our doc/ directory into the man/
directory of an XEmacs package?  By doing a `find
/usr/share/xemacs21/xemacs-packages/man/' I can see other packages
which have Makefile's or README's in man/.

-- 
Ralf