Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: auctex.spec: auctex.el/preview-latex.el vs. suse-start-*.el

[Ralf Angeli]

* Reiner Steib (2005-10-08) writes:

> If the admin doesn't want to enable AUCTeX globally (he could simply
> remove `suse-start-auctex.el'), it would give the user the change to
> proceed as suggested in the manual:
>
>   (load "auctex.el" nil t t)
>
> Maybe it's better to create `suse-start-auctex.el' when preparing or
> installing the RPM (similar for preview-latex):
>
> ,----[ site-start/suse-start-auctex.el ]
> | ;; Maybe add something from (info "(auctex)Introduction") and ;;
> | (info "(auctex)Advice for package providers") here.
> | ;;
> | ;; Enable AUCTeX globally:
> | (load "auctex.el" nil t t)
> `----

I thought about this as well but didn't find it overly attractive at
first because it adds another level to AUCTeX's initialisation.  We
already have auctex.el over tex-site.el.  And auctex.el was introduced
to be able to deactivate AUCTeX.  I am not sure, though, if there is a
way to let the administrator unload AUCTeX as described in the manual
(in case we don't go for separate suse-start-auctex.el and auctex.el
files and the default for the site should be the plain TeX mode) and
let users re-activate it for themselves.

So in a scenario where the default for AUCTeX should be "off", the
proposal above seems to be preferable.

> Or is there a plan to do another release soon?

I'd like to have the problems with preview-latex activation and XEmacs
sorted out first.  If this really is a bug, a new release would be
warranted.

> BTW, despite of AUCTeX's tradition of surprise releases it would be
> nice to drop a note about an upcoming release on auctex-devel.

Hm, I remember writing something like "the upcoming release is only a
few days away" several times on the lists.

-- 
Ralf