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

[Franz Haeuslschmid]

David Kastrup writes:

> Franz Haeuslschmid <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Hm.  I just looked over the respective Makefile and observed, how
>> TEXIPWD is used:
>>
>> ,----
>> | TEXINFOINCLUDES=-I $${TEXIPWD}../../doc
>> `----
>>
>> By escaping `$', the evaluation of variable TEXIPWD is up to the
>> executing shell (I think).  This means, if there is some purpose of
>> setting TEXIPWD, the user is responsible for setting this
>> environment variable.  However, I have no clue, why the extension of
>> that variable has to be retarded.  OK, there is the possibility to
>> discard changes to that variable by make itself.
>
> I have just thrown out the references to TEXIPWD completely.  I have
> my doubts that this makes a difference though.  Could you check again?

Works for me.  And yes, it doesn't make any difference.  I just
wondered, why to set TEXINFOINCLUDES that way.

>> Anyway, I suppose `/bin/texi2dvi' fails to pass the texinfo include
>> path to TeX (MiKTeX) in a form, that is understood by TeX.  I'd try
>> to use MiKTeX's texi2dvi.
>
> Well, we use what we detect in the PATH.  If that's wrong, it needs to
> get overriden.

Don't get me wrong.  The remark on `texi2dvi' versions was meant
as a hint to Uwe, the original poster.  In my opinion, it is in
the responsibility of the developer to provide a sane environment
for the build of AUCTeX.  However, it may be a task of the
documentation to describe such a development environment.  If my
hint turns out to be helpful, that pitfall (and the way to avoid
it) may be mentioned in the info documentation for the build
procedure on MS-Windows.  For now, I would ask Uwe to try my
suggestion.  Maybe not today, it seems he is enjoying what some
of us call "Feierabend" ;-)

Franz.