Reiner Steib <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Jun 07 2006, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Ok Reiner, I adapted the spec file as good as I could and I hope it >> will work and produce a sensible preview-tetex package. I also >> adapted install.texi to actually recommend what we are doing >> ourselves. We might want to adapt the blurb in RELEASE >> correspondingly, but maybe it is ok. >> >> Could you check that this actually works and, in case it doesn't, >> look for the problem? > > In addition to the changes I've installed yesterday, I'd like to > propose to add a directory argument for texhash/mktexlsr, see below.
Not sure that all relevant teTeX versions grok that. We are talking teTeX 2.0 here, if not earlier. > AFAICS, mktexlsr is the canonical name now, isn't it? At least > (info "(kpathsea)Filename database generation") mentions mktexlsr. Again, "now" is not the same as "the most outdated TeX distribution in the most outdated OS distribution that has not reached end-of-support by now". > (I seem to recall a command to add single files to the ls-R > database, but I can't find it now.) Does it make sense to specify > the path "/usr/bin/"? Yes. There are too many alternative TeX systems around that might be installed on a machine. We don't want to update the wrong TeX system when the package is installed. The update should be the system tree TeX system. So I am not in favor of both suggestions out of the box. I might change my opinion on the first one if you do all the research that makes sure that mktexlsr (as well as the directory option) is available on _all_ systems still actively in support. I'd be too lazy to do that myself, as I don't see much benefit in it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
