[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] install AUCTeX as an off xemacs-pkg

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: [AUCTeX-devel] install AUCTeX as an off xemacs-pkg
Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:44:55 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Uwe Brauer <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> As far as I understand the packing system, there are two steps, 
>     - The  local pkg manager,  in the case of  auctex, me, has to
>       add relevant  lisp,  texi and other   files, and adapt  the
>       relevant targets in the Makefiles. However in theses
>       Makefiles there are other targets used for the whole Xemacs
>       package structure, which are not to be touched by me! As a
>       matter of fact I cannot really generate a `real'
>       xemacs-auctex-pkg.  I can however generate a sort of test
>       package which I could install in site-packages (and which I
>       usually do).  Such a package I can compare with the one you
>       offer.
>     - The global  pkg   manager generates  the  official   xemacs
>       packages and the SUMO package.

Oh great.  So we as upstream, you as the importer _and_ the global
manager all have different duties and have to get them done with some
knowledge of the others.

>    David> Just use the xemacs-package target once as described,
>    David> and everything will be set up properly in the
>    David> xemacs-build directory for generating a clean XEmacs
>    David> package, and a package will be generated.  You can then
>    David> take a look at what files are included in this package,
>    David> and check how xemacs-build/Makefile created them.
> That is what I thought and tried. As I said in an earlier mail I
> run once .configure without the -without-texmf-dir option and
> once with it in order to find the relevant differences. But it
> was not as easy as I thought.

Why would you be bothered about the differences?  What you need is the
actual files generated by configure --without-texmf-dir.  What the
difference to --with-texmf-dir is, is pretty irrelevant, isn't it?

Anyway, do you know
M-x ediff-directories RET
?  This helps quite a bit in looking at different _trees_, so if you
are really out for the differences for some reason, this should help.

I really think that your best bet might be to generate an XEmacs
package with the given target, and unpack it again.  Then throw away
the Metadata files, sort the stuff into appropriate directories, write
the necessary Metadata for XEmacs from scratch, and check the whole
kaboodle in.

In that manner, you don't need to deal with the separate preview
subdirectory and unnecessary files for which you are not sure what
they are supposed to do.

Recompiling the stuff from the unpacked XEmacs package should require
only very few rules, as the XEmacs package is _much_ more similar to
an XEmacs source package as the AUCTeX tarball is.

> So I thought it would be faster if you (or the person who wrote
> the relevant code) could shortly explain me, which Makefile
> targets are generated, when one runs ./configure with the
> --without-texmf-dir option. 

The targets are pretty much the same, I guess.  It is just that
initialization files like tex-site.el and auctex.el and so on get
different contents.

> As you said below, one of the things is to modifty tex.el in order
> to have that TEXIMPUTS set at runtime.

I said no such thing.  I said to grep for kpathsea in tex.el in order
to find out how this works.  But that does not mean that tex.el should
get edited or changed.  You should not need to edit a single file.
It should be sufficient to copy them to the appropriate places for the
XEmacs package system, and write the required Metadata files that the
package system does not generate itself.

> Well I have to see, the problem (while the sync needs so much
> time is, besides my workload in non xemacs things) that there has
> been lately  quite a bit of chance in recent releases, from
> 11.14 to 11.5x and now the so far biggest to 11.8x (since
> preview-latex is now in). In principle if the structure is set,
> it should not be so much work, it would be adding or updating
> lisp files. So I don't know whether an automatic process would be
> really necessary (since it might cost me more time to write these
> batch files than to do it manually).

Lots of the changes for 11.80 were _explicitly_ for the purpose to
make generating an XEmacs package as painless as possible.  So I
really don't think that it makes sense to try to continue using the
11.50 configurations and adaptations.

>    David> So please don't be afraid to use our Makefile and
>    David> configure scripts: just consider them as tools for
>    David> yourself to use manually in order to get the tree into a
>    David> state where you don't need to do much more than check it
>    David> in.
> Well I should copy and paste some code of your Makefiles into the
> xemacs Makefiles and the most urgent thing I have to understand is
> what are the precise targets generated by ./configure
> --without-texmf-dir.

Again, this is not as much a matter of Makefile targets, but rather of
autogenerated files (there is usually a *.in file from which they get
generated by configure with the help of text substitutions).

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]