David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2/ I originally posted this information on [EMAIL PROTECTED], as
>> adviertised on the first page of the info manual, but this got rejected (the
>> adress is said to be dead).
>
> And I _did_ tell you to use [email protected] instead and explained why.
Sorry, I used the bug reporting function. Since the package was
outdated, the wrong address was used.
> Your version of AUCTeX is completely outdated
> You are likely using the Sumo tarball from XEmacs.
I use CVS packages; that's why I thought it was up to date.
> This contains an outdated and partly broken version of AUCTeX. There is no
> active AUCTeX maintainer among XEmacs developers at the moment, so it is not
> likely that they'll even fix the wrong mailing list addresses.
>
> Please uninstall AUCTeX via the package manager, then install a new
> version from
> <URL:ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/auctex/auctex-11.83-pkg.tar.gz>. This
> is a perfectly viable and working XEmacs package, but since it was not
> created using XEmacs' development tools, it will not get accepted into
> XEmacs by the XEmacs development team. Which is actually a pity,
> since AUCTeX-11.83 also comes with preview-latex integrated.
I remember threads about this on xemacs-beta (in Cc:), but did not
follow them. Anyway, (I'm talking to the other XEmacs folks here) wouldn't it
be better if we removed AUC-TeX from our packages archive, rather than
distributing such an old version ? (I'm not volunteering for the package
maintenance; sorry, no time).
> If your problems with the documentation not matching the code persist with
> this package, please report back to this list.
Seems fine now. Thanks.
--
Didier Verna, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
bug-auctex mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-auctex
