Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Information about RPM systems?

[David Kastrup]

Reiner Steib <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 07 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Ok Reiner, I adapted the spec file as good as I could and I hope it
>> will work and produce a sensible preview-tetex package.  I also
>> adapted install.texi to actually recommend what we are doing
>> ourselves.  We might want to adapt the blurb in RELEASE
>> correspondingly, but maybe it is ok.
>>
>> Could you check that this actually works and, in case it doesn't,
>> look for the problem?
>
> In addition to the changes I've installed yesterday, I'd like to
> propose to add a directory argument for texhash/mktexlsr, see below.

Not sure that all relevant teTeX versions grok that.  We are talking
teTeX 2.0 here, if not earlier.

> AFAICS, mktexlsr is the canonical name now, isn't it?  At least
> (info "(kpathsea)Filename database generation") mentions mktexlsr.

Again, "now" is not the same as "the most outdated TeX distribution in
the most outdated OS distribution that has not reached end-of-support
by now".

> (I seem to recall a command to add single files to the ls-R
> database, but I can't find it now.)  Does it make sense to specify
> the path "/usr/bin/"?

Yes.  There are too many alternative TeX systems around that might be
installed on a machine.  We don't want to update the wrong TeX system
when the package is installed.  The update should be the system tree
TeX system.

So I am not in favor of both suggestions out of the box.  I might
change my opinion on the first one if you do all the research that
makes sure that mktexlsr (as well as the directory option) is
available on _all_ systems still actively in support.  I'd be too lazy
to do that myself, as I don't see much benefit in it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum