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

[David Kastrup]

Jan-Åke Larsson <address@hidden> writes:

> 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?

Right.

> 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.

Ok, I did not think of texprefix.  We'll still have the problem that,
say, on a default RedHat system for site-wide installation, namely
with datadir being set to /usr/local and texprefix being /usr, we will
hit /usr/texmf-local even when datadir is /usr?  Hmmm.  No, not
really.

This really feels sort of shaky, but I think you are right.

>> 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,

Uh, Jan-Åke?  While I see the utility of your patch, _this_ directory
seems like a bug.  Possible to find out how it comes about?  I'd like
to prevent that particular choice with a bit more safety margin than
your patch would provide.

> 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

I think the /. comes from something like

(concat "/sw/tex/teTeX/3.0/texmf-local/"
  (file-relative-name "/sw/tex/teTeX/3.0/texmf-local" 
"/sw/tex/teTeX/3.0/texmf-local/"))

at the end of the EMACS_EXAMINE_INSTALLATION_DIR.  I have to use
"concat" here instead of expand-file-name so that nothing gets
expanded, in particular not made absolute or stuff.

I'll try fixing it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum