* 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 _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
