[comp.emacs.xemacs] AUCTeX 11.84 released
dak at gnu.org
Mon Jan 22 09:33:43 EST 2007
Uwe Brauer <oub at mat.ucm.es> writes:
> Now I must add a technical question, David. I have only very briefly
> followed the discussions on the Auctex mailing list. But is it
> correct that you are planning also to include reftex into auctex?
No. At the current point of time the only option considered is moving
RefTeX into the AUCTeX repository or even just a separate repository
for the AUCTeX project. It is not planned to change the way RefTeX is
released: it will still be synched to Emacs CVS as appropriate for its
release process, and it will likely be released from time to time as a
The process for XEmacs developers is not likely to change.
> If so, that might lead to a change of the installation process? When
> is this going to be happen?
Not at all.
> David> That's just a bunch of unnecessary work. Just cut out the
> David> history. Let the AUCTeX Makefile build an XEmacs package
> David> tree (or a finished binary package): this generates all
> David> the necessary startup files with all the necessary
> David> relative paths. Then go backwards from the finished
> David> binary package, dissecting it into your source tree
> David> arrangement.
> David> All the files are there then. You just need to arrange
> David> them in your source tree order before the scripts
> David> compiling and copying them are run, and are finished.
> Are you _really_ sure of this David?
The resulting binary package is reported to work. If there is any
file in the tarball that is left without a _corresponding_ source file
(as opposed to the build structure, Makefile, etc), that would be a
packaging error. Short of such errors (which you should report if you
find them), everything that could be possibly of use for building an
XEmacs package in the XEmacs way should be in the binary package we
> I am not and that is why I try to follow the way the XEmacs package
> system requires things to be done.
I don't believe that the XEmacs package system requires you to shoot
yourself in the foot by not making best use of available files and
> David> Yup, what I said: XEmacs developers _will_ deny that
> David> anybody is interested in AUCTeX.
> To be fair I have not seen a overwhelming amount of calls for the
> upgrade. From time to time that subject appears in the list, right
> but not more.
That's because we get all the bug reports upstream. There is a reason
we provide a ready-built XEmacs package: it definitely cuts down the
number of such reports.
More information about the XEmacs-Beta