12:16 a.m.
Hey, I just noticed that there's a copy of texinfo.tex in the man/
directory that identifies itself as:
\def\texinfoversion{1999-09-25.10}
whereas the latest
<http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/texinfo/doc/texinfo.tex?root=texinfo&a...
is:
\def\texinfoversion{2010-09-06.17}
Considering that most TeX distributions probably have this file
anyway, I would just suggest removing the file from the repository,
and adding a note to man/README just in case there actually is a TeX
distro without texinfo.tex.
(I was going to suggest adding the latest, but then I noticed that it
was GPLv3...)
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:26 a.m.
Samuel Bronson writes:
Hey, I just noticed that there's a copy of texinfo.tex in the
man/
directory that identifies itself as:
\def\texinfoversion{1999-09-25.10}
The question, how much more recent a version can we be pretty sure
that people will have it? I know people running Debian "woody", but
none of them are Emacs users so I don't think we care. Still, not
everybody will be running Lunatic Lake Trout or whatever Ubuntu
current is.
The point is that that manual can be referred to as sort of a standard
for what syntax we can and can't put into our manuals.
whereas the latest
<http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/texinfo/doc/texinfo.tex?root=texinfo&a...
is:
\def\texinfoversion{2010-09-06.17}
This is way too recent.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:29 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Samuel Bronson writes:
> Hey, I just noticed that there's a copy of texinfo.tex in the man/
> directory that identifies itself as:
>
> \def\texinfoversion{1999-09-25.10}
The question, how much more recent a version can we be pretty sure
that people will have it? I know people running Debian "woody", but
none of them are Emacs users so I don't think we care. Still, not
everybody will be running Lunatic Lake Trout or whatever Ubuntu
current is.
The point is that that manual can be referred to as sort of a standard
for what syntax we can and can't put into our manuals.
Er, I'm actually referring to the implementation here, not the manual
-- ".tex", not ".texi". (I suspect the latest versions of the manual
are under some form of the GFDL?)
What bothers me is that the copy of texinfo.tex in that directory will
shadow whatever newer version is probably installed. Now that you
mention it, though, I guess it's *possible* to have an older version
installed, too. (But is someone like that really going to be expecting
trouble-free TeXing of a 2010 version of a manual?)
If it does worry you, there is always the option of pulling in
<http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/texinfo/doc/texinfo.tex?revision=1.241...
(2007-06-27.09) or earlier, which are licensed GPLv2 or later. MiKTeX
seems to come with version 2007-06-20.13.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:16 a.m.
Samuel Bronson writes:
> The point is that that manual can be referred to as sort of a
standard
> for what syntax we can and can't put into our manuals.
Er, I'm actually referring to the implementation here, not the manual
-- ".tex", not ".texi". (I suspect the latest versions of the manual
are under some form of the GFDL?)
I am too. The point is that we've had problems in the past with
people using Texinfo constructions that don't work on common distros
(eg, Debian stable) because the available implementation is too old.
installed, too. (But is someone like that really going to be
expecting
trouble-free TeXing of a 2010 version of a manual?)
My feeling is that they shouldn't have to worry about it. Period. A
policy of not caring if they annoy users who don't believe in
"breaking what don't need no fixin' nohow" is one of the reasons
I'm
not interested in working on GNU Emacs. I'd be very sad if anything
we did caused unnecessary breakage for someone, although I won't veto
it if somebody else really wants to do something about the old version
of texinfo.tex.
If modern makeinfo/texinfo.tex has some killer features that we just
have to have, let us know about them. (We do have a minimum version
requirement for building the packages, although it's pretty old
itself.) Otherwise, what harm is done?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:09 a.m.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:16 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen(a)xemacs.org> wrote:
Samuel Bronson writes:
[...]
> installed, too. (But is someone like that really going to be
expecting
> trouble-free TeXing of a 2010 version of a manual?)
My feeling is that they shouldn't have to worry about it. Period. A
policy of not caring if they annoy users who don't believe in
"breaking what don't need no fixin' nohow" is one of the reasons
I'm
not interested in working on GNU Emacs. I'd be very sad if anything
we did caused unnecessary breakage for someone, although I won't veto
it if somebody else really wants to do something about the old version
of texinfo.tex.
Point, point.
If modern makeinfo/texinfo.tex has some killer features that we just
have to have, let us know about them. (We do have a minimum version
requirement for building the packages, although it's pretty old
itself.) Otherwise, what harm is done?
Okay, it turns out there is at least this very simple answer: "make
dvi" will fail with many/most current TeX distributions. The reason
for this is that the version of texinfo.tex in the tree uses the
conditional "\ifx\pdfoutput\undefined" to determine whether it is
being run under pdfTeX or not. Unfortunately, as explained on
<http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=ifpdf>;, running under
pdfTeX doesn't actually imply that a PDF is desired, since many
distributions use the pdfTeX code for the "tex" command as well as for
the "pdftex" command. This has, of course, been fixed.
Moving on to "make pdf", I get dumped out to a TeX error prompt during
the building of "texinfo.pdf":
texi2dvi --pdf texinfo.texi
This is pdfTeX, Version 3.1415926-1.40.10 (MiKTeX 2.8)
entering extended mode
(E:\Documents\Code\xemacs-beta\man\texinfo.texi
(E:\Documents\Code\xemacs-beta\man\texinfo.tex
Loading texinfo [version 1999-09-25.10]: Basics, pdf,
("C:\Program Files\MiKTeX 2.8\tex\plain\misc\pdfcolor.tex") fonts,
page headings, tables, conditionals, indexing, sectioning, toc, environments,
defuns, macros, cross references,
("C:\Program Files\MiKTeX 2.8\tex\generic\epsf\epsf.tex"
This is `epsf.tex' v2.7.3 <23 July 2005>
) localization, and turning on texinfo input format.) [1{C:/Documents and Setti
ngs/All Users/Application Data/MiKTeX/2.8/pdftex/config/pdftex.map}] [2]
[3] [4] (Texinfo Copying Conditions) Chapter 1 [1] [2]
Cross reference values unknown; you must run TeX again. [3] [4] [5] [6]
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Chapter 2 [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]
[20] [21] [22] [23] Chapter 3 [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]
[33] [34] [35] [36] Chapter 4 [37] [38] [39] [40] Chapter 5 [41] [42] [43]
WARNING: for users of Unix TeX 3.0!
This manual trips a bug in TeX version 3.0 (tex hangs).
If you are running another version of TeX, relax.
If you are running Unix TeX 3.0, kill this TeX process.
Then upgrade your TeX installation if you can.
(See ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/TeX.README.)
If you are stuck with version 3.0, run the
script ``tex3patch'' from the Texinfo distribution
to use a workaround.
! Undefined control sequence.
＠code ->＠begingroup ＠catcode `＠-=＠active ＠let -
＠codedash ＠catcode `＠_=＠activ...
＠addtokens ...ef ＠addtoks {＠noexpand #1={＠the #1#2
}}＠addtoks
＠skipspaces ...＠else ＠addtokens {＠filename }{＠PP }
＠advance ＠filenamelength b...
<argument> ＠code
{＠＠appendix}
＠getfilename ...ngth =0＠expandafter ＠skipspaces #1
|＠relax
＠xrefX ...＠fi ＠ifpdf ＠leavevmode ＠getfilename {#4}
＠ifnum ＠filenamelength >0 ...
l.4012 ... ＠code{＠＠unnumbered}, ＠code{＠＠appendix}}
).
?
I'm not sure what causes this, but it does not occur with the version
of texinfo.tex from MiKTeX.
Another problem I'm seeing is that texi2dvi does not appear to repeat
tex runs when neededin order to get the references right, but that
seems to happen with both of these versions of texinfo.tex.
Oh, I've now found one issue with the version in MiKTeX: the outline
around ＠key{} doesn't seem to work right anymore (even though I can't
see any changes to the code for it) :-(
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://lists.xemacs.org/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
4946
days inactive
4950
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Samuel Bronson -
Stephen J. Turnbull