Re: concerns in the documentation

Didier Verna <didier <at> xemacs.org> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> 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 Your version of AUCTeX is completely outdated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 This contains an outdated and partly broken version of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  <at>  <at>  instead of the normal at sign (required in
TeXinfo).  The current bug reporting list would be bug-auctex <at> gnu.org,
the general discussion list auctex <at> gnu.org, the developer's list
auctex-devel <at> gnu.org.  Any mailing addresses of the form
auc-tex.* <at>  <at> ?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are outdated.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

Re: concerns in the documentation

David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> wrote:

> For the record: the mailing lists are mentioned in a number of locations,
> partly with  <at>  <at>  instead of the normal at sign (required in TeXinfo). The
> current bug reporting list would be bug-auctex <at> gnu.org, the general
> discussion list auctex <at> gnu.org, the developer's list auctex-devel <at> gnu.org. 
> Any mailing addresses of the form auc-tex.* <at>  <at> ?sunsite.dk are outdated.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.

        OK, will do.

--

-- 
Didier Verna, didier <at> lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier

EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire   Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France   Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22   didier <at> xemacs.org

Re: concerns in the documentation

* Didier Verna (2006-09-06) writes:

> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>         OK, will do.

The address should probably be something like
"update-your-auctex-installation <at> localhost", because that's what
people will get to hear in 90% of all bug reports coming from an
outdated AUCTeX installation.  I'd really be in favor of removing
AUCTeX from the XEmacs package repository if it cannot be updated.

--

-- 
Ralf

Re: Re: concerns in the documentation

Ralf Angeli <angeli <at> caeruleus.net> writes:

> * Didier Verna (2006-09-06) writes:
>
>> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>         OK, will do.
>
> The address should probably be something like
> "update-your-auctex-installation <at> localhost", because that's what
> people will get to hear in 90% of all bug reports coming from an
> outdated AUCTeX installation.

So what?  We can prepare a form letter for that purpose.  At least I
don't have the moderation and reply-address change hassle which is
really a big nuisance.  And it means that we can finally close down
the AUCTeX mailing list nonsense and Sunsite.dk terminally in a year
or so.

> I'd really be in favor of removing AUCTeX from the XEmacs package
> repository if it cannot be updated.

Well yes, but that is a much larger and invasive change and somebody
would need to feel responsible enough to do it.  AUCTeX is definitely
not the only area of bit rot in XEmacs; there will always be someone
to complain when his favorite package, however broken, falls out of

Re: Re: concerns in the documentation

Surendra Singhi <efuzzyone <at> netscape.net> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>
> I feel AUC-TeX is a wonderful package, unfortunately it is not being
> brought upto date; but it will be bad for several XEmacs users to
> remove it completely. Speaking from my own experience, I would have
> not found it out as a substitute for Win-Edt, if it was not a part
> of package manager. I can vouch the same for many XEmacs users in my
> lab, who just use AUC-TeX, because it is easily downloadable from
> the package manager, or is a part of the Sumo.

But the users of a lab are crippled with an AUCTeX version that does
not even contain preview-latex, one of the more useful features for
creating math.  It is not the only significant improvement.  And
reports about the XEmacs package available from the AUCTeX download
page indicate that it installs rather unproblematically.

The version in the Sumo tarball is not activated by default: this is a
large inhibitor in its visibility to unsuspecting users.  An
up-to-date version of AUCTeX would make itself the default TeX mode
(while providing an easy way of disabling it for users who really
don't want it).

Re: concerns in the documentation

>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup
>>>>> "Re: Re: concerns in the documentation"
>>>>>  Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:18:29 +0200

    David> Removing it from Sumo would mean that we could start
    David> providing packages for operating system distributions
    David> without package conflicts, and those packages would also be
    David> automatically active.

Removing AUCTex from Sumo might also encourage the Debian AUCTex
package to depend upon _either_ GNU Emacs _or_ XEmacs instead of upon
only GNU Emacs if that is feasible.

        jam

_______________________________________________
auctex-devel mailing list
auctex-devel <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex-devel

Re: Re: concerns in the documentation

"John A. Martin" <jam <at> jamux.com> writes:

>>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup
>>>>>> "Re: Re: concerns in the documentation"
>>>>>>  Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:18:29 +0200
>
>     David> Removing it from Sumo would mean that we could start
>     David> providing packages for operating system distributions
>     David> without package conflicts, and those packages would also be
>     David> automatically active.
>
> Removing AUCTex from Sumo might also encourage the Debian AUCTex
> package to depend upon _either_ GNU Emacs _or_ XEmacs instead of upon
> only GNU Emacs if that is feasible.

Frankly, I shudder to think what the Debian Emacsen policy system
happens to make from the combined Sumo and upstream AUCTeX packages...
I can't imagine the results to be very robust and comprehensible.

--

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: concerns in the documentation

>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup
>>>>> "Re: Re: concerns in the documentation"
>>>>>  Thu, 07 Sep 2006 16:10:42 +0200

    David> "John A. Martin" <jam <at> jamux.com> writes:
    >>>>>>> "David" == David Kastrup "Re: Re: concerns in the
    >>>>>>> documentation" Thu, 07 Sep 2006 12:18:29 +0200
    >>
    David> Removing it from Sumo would mean that we could start
    David> providing packages for operating system distributions
    David> without package conflicts, and those packages would also be
    David> automatically active.
    >>
    >> Removing AUCTex from Sumo might also encourage the Debian
    >> AUCTex package to depend upon _either_ GNU Emacs _or_ XEmacs
    >> instead of upon only GNU Emacs if that is feasible.

    David> Frankly, I shudder to think what the Debian Emacsen policy
    David> system happens to make from the combined Sumo and upstream
    David> AUCTeX packages...  I can't imagine the results to be very
    David> robust and comprehensible.

The current Debian AUCTex package depends upon emacs21 or
emacs-snapshot and says in its description

        Currently XEmacs ships with its own AUCTeX, so this package
        should only be used with GNU/Emacs. (I.e., you don't need to
        install this package if your site uses only XEmacs.)

and the package maintainers have consistently rejected 'Wontfix'

Re: 11.84

* Ralf Angeli (2006-08-27) writes:

> * Ralf Angeli (2006-08-20) writes:
>
>> I'd like to release 11.84 before Emacs pretest starts in order to be
>> able to upload an Emacs/AUCTeX bundle with a recent AUCTeX shortly
>> after the pretest started.
>
> The fan on my notebook died yesterday (again).  So there won't be any
> releases by me for the next two weeks approximately.

I got my notebook back.  If there are no more changes pending I could
do the release in a few days, perhaps this weekend.

I thought a bit about changing default strings for latex and tex
executable options to support file names with spaces.  I'd only do
this if it were possible for people with older TeX systems to switch
easily to the style we are using currently.  Perhaps we could store
the strings in two lists and construct defaults (i.e. values in
variables like `TeX-command-list') from elements in those lists.

--

-- 
Ralf

Re: [AUCTeX-diffs] Changes to auctex/latex.el,v

Reiner Steib <reiner.steib <at> gmx.de> writes:

> --- latex.el	8 Sep 2006 16:25:54 -0000	5.420
> +++ latex.el	8 Sep 2006 16:27:29 -0000	5.421
>  <at>  <at>  -3646,12 +3646,12  <at>  <at> 
>      (?q "chi" "Greek Lowercase" 967) ;; #X03C7
>      (?y "psi" "Greek Lowercase" 968) ;; #X03C8
>      (?w "omega" "Greek Lowercase" 969) ;; #X03C9
> -    (nil "varepsilon" "Greek Lowercase" 949) ;; #X03B5
> -    (nil "vartheta" "Greek Lowercase" 977) ;; #X03D1
> -    (nil "varpi" "Greek Lowercase" 982) ;; #X03D6
> -    (nil "varrho" "Greek Lowercase" 1009) ;; #X03F1
> -    (nil "varsigma" "Greek Lowercase" 962) ;; #X03C2
> -    (nil "varphi" "Greek Lowercase" 966) ;; #X03C6
> +    ("v e" "varepsilon" "Greek Lowercase" 949) ;; #X03B5
> +    ("v t" "vartheta" "Greek Lowercase" 977) ;; #X03D1

I think this should be "v j" instead, in order to match ?j for theta.

> +    ("v p" "varpi" "Greek Lowercase" 982) ;; #X03D6
> +    ("v r" "varrho" "Greek Lowercase" 1009) ;; #X03F1
> +    ("v s" "varsigma" "Greek Lowercase" 962) ;; #X03C2

I'd be tempted to have this be ?c instead (but it is probably already
taken?) since that is the corresponding babel Greek letter.  And it is
not really a math character, anyway.

> +    ("v f" "varphi" "Greek Lowercase" 966) ;; #X03C6

--

--