Re: Re: preview-latex 0.9 released...

Jan-Ake Larsson <[email protected]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> I had to get something out, the old stuff was decidedly nonrobust, I
>> had to accommodate several new locations and getting it all to work
>> reasonably under Windows and stuff would have been too much of chore.
>
>> The order that was checked including libdir and things) did not seem
>> to obey any defensible or at least well-documented rationale. 
>
> Agreed. It was based on a "this seems to work" test. libdir was
> there for xemacs sake, and is no more. Does this work on xemacs?

Did here.  Where do you think the XEmacs RPM was coming from?  But of
course I have had not much feedback to rely on, and given the
resonance on the group in the last month or so, it would have been
very optimistic to hope that this would improve without a bad release.

I did not hope it to be bad, but I now we are at least getting
feedback.

> Not here.  Additionally, the packagedir test now only looks in
> $prefix and $datadir, which does not work when Xemacs is not
> installed under $prefix.

I'll rather collect enough evidence that this is a problem in practice
before doing too many smart things.

> It seems like the lispdir test will work under Emacs even if Emacs
> is not installed under $prefix. At least that's something.

Uh, it does?

>> I had several reports were the installation happened into decidedly
>> bad trees. Now we are down to bad subtrees. Sorry for that.
>
> What worries me is that the current code seems to pick out the first
> entry in load-path that matches "site-lisp" or "site-packages". I'm
> not sure this is very robust either.

Sure, so we have to sort our choice better.  Sorry for that.

> I do like the new approach, but...

> And the texmf test cannot find my tetex texmf tree anymore either.

If it is not under prefix...  The first thing I want is that we get a
robust installation fitting a site-wide installation, regardless of
what the user has configured for himself.  Everything else is asking
for mysteriously failing package builds on some platforms.

Once we have that in place, we can think about automated fallbacks.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click