* David Kastrup (2005-12-15) writes:
> Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Then decoupling the version numbers of the preview package and
>> AUCTeX/preview-latex might really make sense in the long run.
>
> I don't think so. Particularly with -without-texmf-dir a version of
> preview.sty that is intimately connected with AUCTeX gets installed
> into the Emacs tree. I don't think it makes sense giving different
> version numbers to this integrated version from the encompassing
> AUCTeX, or from external preview versions.
But isn't this just a cosmetic issue? I wouldn't mind if it did not
cause unnecessary work for us and the people at CTAN by forcing us to
upload a new version every time a new AUCTeX release is done even if
nothing in the preview package changed.
>> Is there such a connection at all, that certain versions of
>> preview-latex only work with certain versions of preview?
>
> Well, yes. That is why we have something like
>
> (defcustom preview-default-preamble
> '("\\RequirePackage[" ("," . preview-default-option-list)
> "]{preview}[2004/11/05]")
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> [...]
>
> There is some leeway involved, but whenever preview.el requires
> something new, we are going to have to bump that date.
Regarding a decoupled versioning of preview.sty and AUCTeX this is
rather good news because it means that AUCTeX/preview-latex enforces
the usage of an up-to-date version itself and that this is done via
the date and not the version number.
--
Ralf
_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
