Re: Prefer luatex for documentation

[Jean Abou Samra]

> > So in general I have the feeling that this doesn't bring us much,
> > but just keeps adding more checks to our configure and more choices
> > / configurations to test on a somewhat regular basis.  I'm not
> > really in favor.
> I disagree with that conclusion, but if you feel that we really,
> really must disable xetex support in favor of luatex, let's do it.



My 2cts:

LuaTeX brings us closer to being relieved from the burden
of littering the Texinfo markup with @/ in @code [1]
(https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6275)
so I like the idea of using it for the documentation on
lilypond.org.

On the other hand, most contributors (except those who
want to fine-tune the typography, i.e. basically you,
Werner) will want the doc build to be as fast as possible,
so I'm not fond of using it by default. I would prefer a
./configure option. This also means that a newbie cannot
unconsciously be using it and report problems that don't
reproduce for others ("what's going on, I have the same
version of pdfTeX as you").

Finally, the maintenance burden of supporting three different
engines is a very real thing. You would like to do it for
"philosophical reasons", but I haven't yet understood what
philosophy there is behind this exactly. Please clarify.

Thanks,
Jean


[1] Although another option would be to just not care ...

OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature