Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Anybody out there?

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> a) RPM specs need to be created.  The current RPM is Emacs-only and
>>
>> Better names and schemes welcome.  Who implements this gets to choose.
>
> Ok, I think that we probably should have something like
> preview-styles-tetex2 (conflicts with tetex-3.*, provides preview-styles)
> preview-styles-tetex3 (provides preview-styles, obsoletes
>   preview-styles-tetex2)
>
> No, this does not work out.  It would make preview-styles-tetex3
> install over preview-styles-tetex2 even when one is using tetex2, and
> strictly speaking, it does not conflict with tetex2.  And tetex3
> should provide preview-styles probably, too.  As well as gazillion of
> other styles.  Looks like we can't do much sensibly except just have
> preview-styles install into /usr/local/share/texmf regardless of teTeX
> version.  Sigh.  Or was that /usr/share/texmf.local?  Should we
> require tetex? Probably.  We can't really know where other packages
> will be looking for local style files.
>
> auctex-emacs (includes its own styles packages not conflicting with
> preview-styles-*)
>
> auctex-emacs-nostyles (requires preview-styles to be provided
> elsewhere).
>
> We probably should take a look what people providing just the style
> files have chosen to call their packages: I think that LyX needs
> such packages.

Debian has preview-latex-style.  However, there is nothing
"preview-latex" in there.  The singular is actually more appropriate:
it is just preview.sty and support for it.

So how about:

preview-tetex (requires tetex).  Or should that be tetex-preview?
auctex-emacs-tetex (requires preview-tetex, auctex-common, emacs)
auctex-emacs-generic (requires auctex-common, emacs)
auctex-xemacs-tetex (requires preview-tetex, auctex-common, xemacs)
auctex-xemacs-generic (requires auctex-common, xemacs)
auctex-common (documentation files)

Maybe auctex-common is actually not needed: if the xemacs-packages are
done in a way that they are _exactly_ like an xemacs-package,
everything including documentation will be in the XEmacs tree.

Is there anything like an opinion?

What about auto-generating style files?  Should auctex-emacs-tetex and
auctex-xemacs-tetex include that in the package build?  Do we then
need tetex2 and tetex3 after all?  Or can we just claim tetex3 as a
build dependency (to not let packages diverge too much)?

Or should we generate the auto files when installing AUCTeX?  That
would make them fit the currently installed tetex.  But strictly
speaking, one would need to regenerate when tetex was upgraded.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum