auctex preview.dvi build failure

[David Kastrup]

Ville Skyttä <scop at xemacs.org> writes:

> On Wednesday 25 February 2009, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> CVS version tags are used for versioning the released files.  Obviously,
>> the format of your version control system tags differs, as do the actual
>> versions.  So when LaTeX tries parsing the version control tags, the
>> unforeseen format throws it off the track.
>
> Thanks for the tip.  I suppose changing the CVS keyword expansion mode in 
> XEmacs packages CVS so that it doesn't do the expansion at all (now that 
> they're already in, can be IIRC done after the fact with "cvs admin -ko ... ; 
> cvs up") would fix it by keeping their values exactly as they were in the 
> files that were checked in.  But if I understand you correctly, that wouldn't 
> satisfy this as I gather there might be some other differences in the 
> versions shipped with the version in XEmacs packages collection:
>
>> It is important for diagnosing problems that the version is indicated as
>> not being the normal upstream version.
>
> How would you prefer this to be indicated?  Something like appending
> "-XEmacs" to all relevant strings (see below) would be pretty easy to
> do, but I haven't checked if it'd play well with how the strings are
> parsed in the code.

If it actually _is_ the same as the upstream version (and it sounds like
there is not really any change to it), then checking in the original
version and telling the version control system not to tamper with the
tags at all should be perfectly fine.  Nothing is gained by marking a
version as changed which only differs by being marked as changed.

> For reference, attached is the list of CVS keywords in auctex from my
> checkout from the latest sumo tag.  Based on a quick look,
> preview/latex/preview.dtx, preview/preview.el, and style/prosper.el
> contain these keywords somewhere else than in comments and would thus
> be primary candidates for -ko, but I don't see any harm in doing that
> for all files in auctex (or actually pretty much the whole packages
> CVS tree and making it the default for new files, but that's another
> discussion, possibly moot if the packages are being moved to another
> SCM in the nearish future).

It is probably not too hot an idea to have those Ids in comments at all,
but that is an upstream problem.  I _think_ that the version parsing
folderol might have changed in AUCTeX 11.85 again, relying less (or
not?) on keyword expansion.

Probably -ko on everything is the sanest way to deal with it.

-- 
David Kastrup