# auctex preview.dvi build failure

David Kastrup dak at gnu.org
Tue Feb 24 09:30:08 EST 2009

Mats Lidell <matsl at xemacs.org> writes:

>>>>>> Ville wrote:
>
> Ville> This looks to me like something that could be the problem, but
> Ville> I don't know what to do about it:
>
> The part:
> ...
> \reserved at a\pr at version $Name:$ \ifx\pr at version\@empty
> \reserved at a\pr at version CVS-$Revision: 1.1.2.1$ \endgroup \else
>   \def\next release_{} \lccode\_=.
> ...
>
> Seems to ensure that the co tag has the format "release_".
>
> Not knowing at all what I'm doing I changed the line into the format
> sumo-{}:
>
> ...
> \reserved at a\pr at version $Name:$ \ifx\pr at version\@empty
> \reserved at a\pr at version CVS-$Revision: 1.1.2.1$ \endgroup \else
>   \def\next sumo-{} \lccode\_=.
>   \edef\next{\lowercase{\endgroup
> ...
>
> Maybe, just maybe, this will make the date in the tag show up as the
> version. If it really is so and if that is the right thing to do is
> another thing. Hopefully this will help anyone who knows tex to figure
> out the right thing to do.

Quoting from the GPLv3 (under which AUCTeX currently is distributed,
your version probably still being under GPLv2)

5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to
produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the
terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified
it, and giving a relevant date.

Putting a LaTeX style file into the search paths and letting it announce
a nonsensical version number not corresponding to any upstream version
is not exactly going to cause major enthusiasm.

So _please_ take the prominent notice stuff seriously.

--
David Kastrup