David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
