Re: auctex & lacheck
Dirk.Eddelbuettel@qed.econ.queensu.ca writes:
>
> Michael Meskes writes:
> Michael> IMO we cannot force everyone who likes to use lacheck to install
> Michael> emacs.
>
> I guess you meant to write "to install auctec"?
No, I mean emacs. You simply cannot install the auctex package without
having installed emacs. OK, I can and you can probably, too. But what about
users who don't know much about computers? Hey, we do get questions like
'What is mount?' from people who start their computer life. How on earth
shall we explain the difference between the installation of a package and of a
file inside the package? Don't get me wrong, I started using lacheck on my
Atari ST. I don't have a problem with that, I just think we should plan for
novice users, who know about these programs but never used one.
> But not even that is necessary. If you are a LaTeX lover && (Emacs hater ||
> AucTeX hater) you can still strip nothing but the lacheck binary out of the
> auctex.deb and put it into /usr/local/bin. See dpkg-deb(8). Lacheck is great,
> btw. But so is Auctex in general. (Yes I am a friend of Richard S. :-)
Auctex may be a great package but I won't install a huge emacs package on a
small disk just to get lacheck.
>
> Let's not take too many packages apart.
I prefer more small packages over fewer large ones.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Lehrstuhl fuer angewandte Mathematik insb. Informatik
RWTH-Aachen, D-52056 Aachen, Germany
email: meskes@informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Reply to: