Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Hello Vincent, In linux.debian.devel, you wrote: I retry: Package name : latex-compile Hmm, IMO the package does not actually compile latex sources; providing Makefile snippets (and LaTeX macros for easy inclusion of xfig images) is a different thing. Now I guess that xfig images are more special, while the Makefile will probably be useful to many or most users and could thus be considered the main service of the package. So I'd suggest a name expressing its linkage to Makefiles, something like latex-maker. Description : easy compiling of complexe (and simple) LaTeX documents I'd drop that complex (and simple), since it's essentially a no-op, cluttering the short description. The ability to handle complex input is detailed in the long description, that's fine. If you choose to rename the package as I suggested above, it might be appropriate to adjust the short description accordingly, to something like LaTeX Makefile snippets and easy xfig integration. This package provides several tools that aim to simplify the compilation of LaTeX documents : . LaTeX.mk: a make(1) snippets to help compiling LaTeX documents in It's not providing snippets of make(1), the binary, but Makefile snippets. DVI, PDF, PS, ... format. Dependencies are automatically tracked : one ^ Drop that space here and in general before colons, as Frank has already pointed it out. Just my 2 Cent, Nikolaus PS: Note that I'm not subscribed to debian-devel, but read it per Mail-to-News-Gateway. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
On 3/29/06, Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package name : latex-compile Description : easy compiling of complexe (and simple) LaTeX documents This package provides several tools that aim to simplify the compilation of LaTeX documents : I'm marginally unhappy with the word compile here. LaTeX programs are not being _compiled_; they are being _executed_ and their output are page descriptions. I'd go for something like build or builder. That's somewhere between compiling and just scripts. Or may be make or maker as it's using Makefile fragments. -- Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Scripsit Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package name : latex-compile Description : easy compiling of complexe (and simple) LaTeX documents This package provides several tools that aim to simplify the compilation of LaTeX documents : I'm marginally unhappy with the word compile here. LaTeX programs are not being _compiled_; they are being _executed_ and their output are page descriptions. -- Henning Makholm The man who catches a meniningococcus is in considerably less danger for his life, even without chemotherapy, than meningococci with the bad luck to catch a man. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Henning Makholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Scripsit Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package name : latex-compile Description : easy compiling of complexe (and simple) LaTeX documents This package provides several tools that aim to simplify the compilation of LaTeX documents : I'm marginally unhappy with the word compile here. Me too, but it's frequently used in this context, and I don't know a good alternative. LaTeX programs are not being _compiled_; they are being _executed_ Hm, well, on the other hand it's the pdftex binary that is executed and reads a file (a couple of them, actually) [1]. Would you say that when you say gv paper.ps, paper is executed? Interpret is clearly a correcter word for what happens, but on the other hand *nobody* uses it for (La)TeX stuff. Nobody uses execute for (La)TeX documents, either. and their output are page descriptions. (Plus screen output, plus a log file, plus other files. However, the log file contains also information that doesn't have anything to do with the LaTeX document (e.g. it tells you which engine was used, like pdfTeX or Knuth's TeX, or e-TeX).) As I said, I'm not happy with compile, but execute or interpret are not at all better. Process is also frequently used, but OTOH this is pretty unspecific and can mean anything, so I wouldn't recommend this. Regards, Frank [1] It's possible to set up a TeX system that, when invoked as latex something[.tex], always creates a PDF file that prints the text You may not use LaTeX, nothing else, and when invoked as pdflatex something[.tex], prints a DVI file with that content, irrespective of the content of something.tex. -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package name : latex-compile Description : easy compiling of complexe (and simple) LaTeX documents This package provides several tools that aim to simplify the compilation of LaTeX documents : I'm marginally unhappy with the word compile here. LaTeX programs are not being _compiled_; they are being _executed_ and their output are page descriptions. A *lots* of book and document talk about 'compilation' for LaTeX documents. I know that TeX (and LaTeX) are Turing-powerfull (not sure about the traduction here), so any classical algorithm can be write in this language. However, we are generally more interested in the result of the program than in its execution. That is why I think that talking about 'compilation' is appropriate for LaTeX documents. Best regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Frank Küster wrote: Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I only have a few .sty that I cuurently install in /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/latex-utils/ (will be latex-compile/) And in my postinst, I use dh_installtex Do you need to register map files, new formats, and new languages with TeX? That's the purpose of dh_installtex. Otherwise just call mktexlsr (or mktexlsr /usr/share/texmf/ if you install only there). I just need to call mktexlsr. Previously (the package exists for a long time even if it was not in Debian), I called manually mktexlsr. Then, I switched to dh_installtex that installs several sanity checks (is libkpathsea configured ?, ...) The drawback is that update-updmap, update-language and update-fmtutil are called whereas my package does not need them (and that mktexlsr is called without any argument, so all dirs are checked). I would prefer to stick with dh_installtex (so that improvment in this script will automatically benefit to my package). But if you think it is not a good think, I will go back with manual invocation of dh_installtex. Another possibility would be to improve dh_installtex, so that it better manages simple latex package. Perhaps new options to remove update-updmap, update-language and/or update-fmtutil calls. And a scan of the package to call mktexlsr only on directories present in the package. Would you be interested by this kind of developments ? Best regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dh_installtex just for calling mktexlsr? (was: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig)
Hi, masters of dh_installtex, Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Küster wrote: Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I only have a few .sty that I cuurently install in /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/latex-utils/ (will be latex-compile/) And in my postinst, I use dh_installtex Do you need to register map files, new formats, and new languages with TeX? That's the purpose of dh_installtex. Otherwise just call mktexlsr (or mktexlsr /usr/share/texmf/ if you install only there). I just need to call mktexlsr. Previously (the package exists for a long time even if it was not in Debian), I called manually mktexlsr. Then, I switched to dh_installtex that installs several sanity checks (is libkpathsea configured ?, ...) The drawback is that update-updmap, update-language and update-fmtutil are called whereas my package does not need them (and that mktexlsr is called without any argument, so all dirs are checked). I would prefer to stick with dh_installtex (so that improvment in this script will automatically benefit to my package). But if you think it is not a good think, I will go back with manual invocation of dh_installtex. Hm, I think that it's good to have those checks, but only if they are needed. They are not needed if you depend on tetex-bin | texlive-base-bin, since in this case it's guaranteed that mktexlsr actually works (libkpathsea is configured etc.). But there may be packages which install TeX input files, but do not depend on a TeX system (instead only Recommend or Suggest). Another possibility would be to improve dh_installtex, so that it better manages simple latex package. Perhaps new options to remove update-updmap, update-language and/or update-fmtutil calls. And a scan of the package to call mktexlsr only on directories present in the package. Would you be interested by this kind of developments ? I'm not familiar with dh_installtex code - would it be easy to add an option, so that only the mktexlsr call is introduced into maintainer scripts? Should we provide an option to add directories to the mktexlsr call, so that only the directories where files have been installed are updated? This could speed up things considerably, and there's no need to update the font cache or TEXMFSITE, or a possibly large TEXMFLOCAL when installing a couple of files in TEXMFMAIN. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I retry:
Package name : latex-compile
Description : easy compiling of complexe (and simple) LaTeX documents
This package provides several tools that aim to simplify the
compilation of LaTeX documents :
.
LaTeX.mk: a make(1) snippets to help compiling LaTeX documents in
DVI, PDF, PS, ... format. Dependencies are automatically tracked : one
should be able to compile documents with a one-line Makefile
containing 'include LaTeX.mk'. Complexe documents (with multiple
bibliographies, indexes, glossaries, ...) should be correctly managed.
.
figlatex.sty: a LaTeX package to easily insert xfig figures (with
\includegraphics{file.fig}). It can interact with LaTeX.mk so that the
latter automatically invokes transfig if needed.
.
And various helper tools for LaTeX.mk
.
Homepage: http://gforge.inria.fr/projects/latex-utils/
That sounds much better. Some grammar/spelling corrections:
s/complexe/complex/, please don't put a space before the colons.
I rarely use xfig - now this sounds as if the package would indeed
include LaTeX macros, or can I use \includegraphics with *.fig files
with standard LaTeX?
Does the new description answer correctly the question ?
Yes, just fine.
Be sure to follow the Debian TeX Policy draft in the tex-common package
- but I guess in your case that only means putting the style file at its
proper place, and making the documentation for it available to texdoc.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Hi,
Frank Küster wrote:
Hi Vincent, hi d-d,
Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Package name: latex-utils
Description : utilities for LaTeX/xfig
I think the package name is unfortunate, and the short description
doesn't help much. latex-utils could just as well be a collection of
nifty LaTeX style files, or something that aids in editing/index
generation/whatever. The short description doesn't help much here.
This package provides a Makefile to compile LaTeX documents (in ps or pdf),
latex packages to easily include xfig figures in LaTeX documents and various
scripts help the Makefile to correctly and easily handle its job.
.
One great interrest of this package is that it automatically track most of
the
dependencies of the LaTeX document. We should just have to create a Makefile
with the single line 'include LaTeX.mk'
.
Homepage: http://gforge.inria.fr/projects/latex-utils/
From this long description, it isn't clear to me whether the integrate
xfig more easily functionality or the LaTeX.mk functionality is the
core of the package. Besides, I think the we should have to sounds
weird in english, I'd rather use One can
I retry:
Package name : latex-compile
Description : easy compiling of complexe (and simple) LaTeX documents
This package provides several tools that aim to simplify the
compilation of LaTeX documents :
.
LaTeX.mk: a make(1) snippets to help compiling LaTeX documents in
DVI, PDF, PS, ... format. Dependencies are automatically tracked : one
should be able to compile documents with a one-line Makefile
containing 'include LaTeX.mk'. Complexe documents (with multiple
bibliographies, indexes, glossaries, ...) should be correctly managed.
.
figlatex.sty: a LaTeX package to easily insert xfig figures (with
\includegraphics{file.fig}). It can interact with LaTeX.mk so that the
latter automatically invokes transfig if needed.
.
And various helper tools for LaTeX.mk
.
Homepage: http://gforge.inria.fr/projects/latex-utils/
Additional notes:
-
This software differs from latex-mk (that has recently enter the debian
archive) in two points :
1) it allows to easily manage .fig files from latex documents
(ie \includegrpahics{foo.fig})
I rarely use xfig - now this sounds as if the package would indeed
include LaTeX macros, or can I use \includegraphics with *.fig files
with standard LaTeX?
Does the new description answer correctly the question ?
I would appreciate any help to improve my description as I am not a
native english speaker.
Me neither, but still willing to help - but we should first clear up the
content...
Thank for your comments. I am waiting for the next ones (from you or
others) ;-)
Regards, Frank
Best regards,
Vincent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Frank Küster wrote: That sounds much better. Some grammar/spelling corrections: s/complexe/complex/, please don't put a space before the colons. Ok, thank. I now about the space before the colons but we must put one in french. And I sometimes I do the wrong thing (in french or in english). Be sure to follow the Debian TeX Policy draft in the tex-common package - but I guess in your case that only means putting the style file at its proper place, and making the documentation for it available to texdoc. I only have a few .sty that I cuurently install in /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/latex-utils/ (will be latex-compile/) And in my postinst, I use dh_installtex However, it is the first time I see texdoc. The manpage does not explain how to make the documentation available. Where can I find more information ? Best regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I only have a few .sty that I cuurently install in /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/latex-utils/ (will be latex-compile/) And in my postinst, I use dh_installtex Do you need to register map files, new formats, and new languages with TeX? That's the purpose of dh_installtex. Otherwise just call mktexlsr (or mktexlsr /usr/share/texmf/ if you install only there). However, it is the first time I see texdoc. The manpage does not explain how to make the documentation available. Where can I find more information ? file:///usr/share/doc/tex-common/Debian-TeX-Policy.html/ch3.html#s-sec-documentation Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Hi Vincent, hi d-d,
Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Package name: latex-utils
Description : utilities for LaTeX/xfig
I think the package name is unfortunate, and the short description
doesn't help much. latex-utils could just as well be a collection of
nifty LaTeX style files, or something that aids in editing/index
generation/whatever. The short description doesn't help much here.
This package provides a Makefile to compile LaTeX documents (in ps or pdf),
latex packages to easily include xfig figures in LaTeX documents and various
scripts help the Makefile to correctly and easily handle its job.
.
One great interrest of this package is that it automatically track most of
the
dependencies of the LaTeX document. We should just have to create a Makefile
with the single line 'include LaTeX.mk'
.
Homepage: http://gforge.inria.fr/projects/latex-utils/
From this long description, it isn't clear to me whether the integrate
xfig more easily functionality or the LaTeX.mk functionality is the
core of the package. Besides, I think the we should have to sounds
weird in english, I'd rather use One can
Additional notes:
-
This software differs from latex-mk (that has recently enter the debian
archive) in two points :
1) it allows to easily manage .fig files from latex documents
(ie \includegrpahics{foo.fig})
I rarely use xfig - now this sounds as if the package would indeed
include LaTeX macros, or can I use \includegraphics with *.fig files
with standard LaTeX?
I would appreciate any help to improve my description as I am not a
native english speaker.
Me neither, but still willing to help - but we should first clear up the
content...
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#358695: ITP: latex-utils -- utilities for LaTeX/xfig
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: latex-utils
Version : 2.1.2
Upstream Author : Vincent Danjean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Arnaud Legrand [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://gforge.inria.fr/projects/latex-utils/
* License : GPL (2 or any later version)
Description : utilities for LaTeX/xfig
This package provides a Makefile to compile LaTeX documents (in ps or pdf),
latex packages to easily include xfig figures in LaTeX documents and various
scripts help the Makefile to correctly and easily handle its job.
.
One great interrest of this package is that it automatically track most of the
dependencies of the LaTeX document. We should just have to create a Makefile
with the single line 'include LaTeX.mk'
.
Homepage: http://gforge.inria.fr/projects/latex-utils/
Additional notes:
-
This software differs from latex-mk (that has recently enter the debian
archive) in two points :
1) it allows to easily manage .fig files from latex documents
(ie \includegrpahics{foo.fig})
2) the Makefile fragment automatically tracks the dependencies (bib
files, included files, figures, ...). There is no need to setup and
maintain Makefile variables.
You can find the current version of the debian package on my web page:
http://dept-info.labri.fr/~danjean/deb.html#latex-utils
Of course, the /usr/share/bug/latex-utils/control will be removed before
the package will be uploaded (this file is here so that people that are
already using the package can use reportbug)
Best regards,
Vincent
PS:
I would appreciate any help to improve my description as I am not a
native english speaker.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.16
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
