Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de> writes: > Speaking of which, couldn't this be made easier? There's only one > org-export-latex-packages-alist and if you're trying to use very > different LaTeX classes you'll end up specifying [NO-DEFAULT-PACKAGES] > and then copying a lot of \usepackage stuff around.
So what? You define your latex classes once in your configuration variable, and you're all set. That doesn't sound that bad. > If it was possible to give an argument to [PACKAGES] (default, header, > <custom>), then there would be no need for [NO-PACKAGES] and > [DEFAULT-PACKAGES] and one yould use several sets of package > definitions in multiple class definitions. It would be especially neat > if there was a pendant to LATEX_HEADER that would allow to specify > additional package collections on the fly. So, you may to make it easier by providing an even more complex machinery? ;) IMO, the current system is good enough for the job, even if the initial step introduces a lot of duplicate lines. Also, if you want to add package collections, you may include a header-only file in your class, I guess. Regards, -- Nicolas Goaziou