Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Missing bits and pieces...

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2005-07-21) writes:
>
>> I think that HTML is ok for our online pages, but it seems strange to
>> use for included docs.
>
> It might be strange but it is not uncommon:
> $ find /usr/share/doc -name \*.html | wc -l
> 3045

I'd be surprised if those pages were mostly generated from Texinfo
source.

> I really don't have a strong opinion here.  For me both a PDF file
> or an HTML file would be acceptable.  Both have their advantages and
> drawbacks.

Texinfo probably has a page layout that one can live with for both A4
and letter.  One nuisance might be that the PDF probably is built with
the system paper size, and thus rebuilding the packages on a different
system might make quite a difference.

>>> I guess this means there won't be packages built with
>>> --without-texmf-dir
>>
>> Uh, there will be _only_ packages built with --without-texmf-dir,
>> you mean?
>
> Well, if there is an extra package including the LaTeX style file,
> there would not be an obligation to include the style file in the
> respective (X)Emacs packages.

Problem is that we don't know where this extra package will be in the
search order (if at all) or whether it may conflict with something
like tetex 3.  If we make it an optional package, we can just let it
install into /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/preview and not bother about
conflicts.  That's one less installation into /usr/local, and frankly,
those give me the willies.

> Of course including it can spare people some hassle who are working
> with TeX systems not covered by the extra package.  So I guess you
> are right in building every package with --without-texmf-dir.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum