Re: [AUCTeX] Re: 'macros.texi' missing in snapshots?

[David Kastrup]

Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:

> * David Kastrup (2005-06-07) writes:
>
>> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> * Uwe Siart (2005-06-07) writes:
>>>
>>>> Does this mean that Win32 installation instructions will have to
>>>> include hints for how to use the correct texi2dvi script?
>>>
>>> I'd rather move the stuff from preview/doc/ to doc/ and blast
>>> preview/doc/.
>>
>> A volunteer, a volunteer!
>
> You wish. (c;

Of course I do.

> Well, moving a few files around and adapting build rules and
> references should not be that a big deal.  In case we don't do any
> integration of the Texinfo manuals I'd just add a -preview.texi
> suffix to the preview-latex files with clashing names.
>
>>> Maybe we can manage to integrate both manuals without too much
>>> effort.
>>
>> Problem is that
>> ./configure --disable-preview
>> still needs to create and install an AUCTeX without preview-latex:
>> Emacs-21 on Windows, Carbon and other platforms remains an
>> installation target, and for a while to come.
>>
>> While a common AUCTeX/preview-latex README would make sense, the
>> respective sections would have to appear separately in the
>> preview-latex and the AUCTeX Texinfo manuals.  It might be an idea,
>> however, to redundantly place the preview-latex introduction into
>> the AUCTeX manual as a teaser, but then one would need to make sure
>> that all cross references go to the full manual.
>
> If preview-latex were handled as a subsystem of AUCTeX in a unified
> manual the fact that it was deactivated at build time would not
> affect the manual.  A very cheap solution for this would be to dump
> the whole preview-latex manual (mainly as-is) into the AUCTex manual
> as a separate chapter.  A more expensive solution would be to
> integrate the duplicate parts, like readme, faq, or todo into the
> corresponding sections of the AUCTeX manual.  The latter approach
> would allow us to remove the respective duplicate files as well.

We still have the -disable-preview situation to deal with.  And I am
not convinced that the overall structure and audience (particular of
the printed versions) of the preview-latex and AUCTeX manual will make
people not rather prefer two separate manuals.  And of course all info
links would need to get adjusted (does info have a "redirect"
feature?).  And I think that the result would start out in mixed
quality.

Those are considerations that have been keeping me from starting
something (I am an absolutely lousy person for "just taking the
plunge").

However, if somebody did the dirty deed behind my back, I'd probably
be unlikely to revert anything.  With regard to one/two manuals: I am
ambiguous about that.  Enough that I would not start merging or
suggesting it myself, but I'd not resist.  It has advantages, too.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum