[AUCTeX-devel] Re: concerns in the documentation

[David Kastrup]

Didier Verna <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Your version of AUCTeX is completely outdated
>
>> You are likely using the Sumo tarball from XEmacs.
>
>         I use CVS packages; that's why I thought it was up to date.
>
>> This contains an outdated and partly broken version of
>> AUCTeX. There is no active AUCTeX maintainer among XEmacs
>> developers at the moment, so it is not likely that they'll even fix
>> the wrong mailing list addresses.

For the record: the mailing lists are mentioned in a number of
locations, partly with @@ instead of the normal at sign (required in
TeXinfo).  The current bug reporting list would be address@hidden,
the general discussion list address@hidden, the developer's list
address@hidden  Any mailing addresses of the form
auc-tex.*@@?sunsite.dk
are outdated.  They are partly dead, partly require a lot of operator
intervention to get the postings to the right addresses with the right
header.

It would be a sign of courtesy to at least correct those if nothing
else.  In particular the bug reporting address in
TeX-submit-bug-report in tex.el.

>> Please uninstall AUCTeX via the package manager, then install a new
>> version from
>> <URL:ftp://ftp.gnu.org/pub/gnu/auctex/auctex-11.83-pkg.tar.gz>.
>> This is a perfectly viable and working XEmacs package, but since it
>> was not created using XEmacs' development tools, it will not get
>> accepted into XEmacs by the XEmacs development team.  Which is
>> actually a pity, since AUCTeX-11.83 also comes with preview-latex
>> integrated.
>
> I remember threads about this on xemacs-beta (in Cc:), but did not
> follow them. Anyway, (I'm talking to the other XEmacs folks here)
> wouldn't it be better if we removed AUC-TeX from our packages
> archive, rather than distributing such an old version ? (I'm not
> volunteering for the package maintenance; sorry, no time).

Personally, I'd welcome such a step since it would make it possible
for us to provide RPMs (and other distribution packages) of AUCTeX for
XEmacs.  At the current point of time, this is not feasible since
GNU/Linux distributions are not set up to deal with multiple
conflicting packages provided simultaneously, and the Sumo tarballs
already contain AUCTeX.

Of course, the best solution would be an up to date AUCTeX in the
XEmacs package tree, but it does not seem likely this would happen
anytime soon.

>> If your problems with the documentation not matching the code
>> persist with this package, please report back to this list.
>
>         Seems fine now. Thanks.

I am moving the thread from bug-auctex to auctex-devel via reply-to
header.  If you experience problems, feel free to report them with
TeX-submit-bug-report and thus start a new thread on bug-auctex.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum