Ralf Angeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * Ralf Angeli (2007-01-24) writes: > >> * David Kastrup (2007-01-23) writes: >> >>> Moving files is a problem, so we should compare the organisation of >>> standalone RefTeX and the Emacs subpart before telling Savannah >>> hackers where to move things. >> >> We should organize files in the RefTeX repository as we deem fit for >> it as a standalone package similar to AUCTeX. > > For the initial import I'd suggest the following layout: > > reftex/CHANGES > reftex/COPYING > reftex/ChangeLog > reftex/INSTALL > reftex/Makefile > reftex/README > reftex/lpath.el > reftex/reftex-auc.el > reftex/reftex-cite.el > reftex/reftex-dcr.el > reftex/reftex-global.el > reftex/reftex-index.el > reftex/reftex-parse.el > reftex/reftex-ref.el > reftex/reftex-sel.el > reftex/reftex-toc.el > reftex/reftex-vars.el > reftex/reftex.el > reftex/doc/reftex.texi > > Changes compared to the currently downloadable tarball are the > addition of a ChangeLog file, the placement of reftex.texi into a > `doc' directory and the removal of the `reftex' info file.
Sounds reasonable. With regard to Makefile, one will probably at one point of time take a look of whether it makes sense to do something using autoconf, but maybe that's a can of worms. We'll have to see how people get along. At the moment, there is not much of a market for RefTeX outside of Emacs CVS and XEmacs Sumo. > The files CHANGES, INSTALL and README might eventually get removed > and be generated during the build as in case of AUCTeX. Possibly. > We could also consider putting the Lisp files into their own `lisp' > directory. Also sounds reasonable. Seems consistent with a separate doc directory. Of course, this might buy us additional Makefiles. At the current point of time, I have absolutely no idea what kind of changes could trouble what kind of users. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ auctex-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel
