[AUCTeX-devel] Re: preview-latex 0.9.1 and AUCTeX 11.whatever

[Jan-Åke Larsson]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Oh rats, did not think of that.  While that seems like a generally
> sensible idea, do we have a chance that this will ever do the right
> thing in any situation?  Seems like barking up the wrong directory
> tree:
>
> If datadir is /usr/local/share, then /usr/local/share/texmf-local is
> not likely to exist (the right place probably being
> /usr/share/texmf-local), 

Nor would it be in pathoutput, no? Which would mean we continue in the
list and hit ${datadir}/texmf if it exists, then
${texprefix}/texmf-local and only then ${texprefix}/texmf which would
probably match in your example.

> and that if datadir is /usr/share, then we
> would want to install in /usr/share/texmf in the first place, as we
> are then performing a system default instead of a site-wide
> installation?

Not in tetex-3 where there is no latex or tex subdirectory in /foo/texmf.
These reside in /foo/texmf-dist, and in /foo/texmf-local. It seems to me
the latter is preferable.

> What is teTeX's take on the Linux file system standard in that regard?

Dunno. All I know is that without the patch I get
  checking for prefix from kpsepath... "/sw/tex/teTeX/3.0"
  checking for TDS-compliant directory... /sw/tex/teTeX/3.0/texmf-config
which is certainly off the chart, and with the patch I get
  checking for prefix from kpsepath... "/sw/tex/teTeX/3.0"
  checking for TDS-compliant directory... /sw/tex/teTeX/3.0/texmf-local/.
which is better (apart from that strange /.)
/JÅ