emacsen, sgml, litprog, etc. (Was: Location of noweb.sty)
- To: Federico Di Gregorio <email@example.com>
- Cc: Julian Gilbey <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Debian Developers List <email@example.com>
- Subject: emacsen, sgml, litprog, etc. (Was: Location of noweb.sty)
- From: Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 20:50:32 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <19981124092953.D13265@pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it>
- References: <19981123091553.A10208@pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it> <m0zi3Sd-000Ij4C@polya> <19981124092953.D13265@pcamb6.irfmn.mnegri.it>
Federico Di Gregorio writes:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 1998 at 09:23:55PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 22, 1998 at 11:52:06PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > > > I am repackaging cweb-latex for Debian, which is a LaTeX style file
> > > > for CWEB. I have noticed that you have placed the noweb.sty file in
> > > > $TEXMF/tex/latex/litprog, and wondered if that's the standard place to
> > > > put style files connected with literate programming? I would
> > > > personally have been inclined to put the single file noweb.sty into
> > > > latex/misc and the cweb-latex files into latex/cweb.
> > >
> > > I originally put the .sty file in latex/misc, but I was told (from
> > > the web/cweb people) to put it in litprog. They standarized the
> > > literate programming stuff a lot. Refer to the web maintainer for
> > > more information. Hope thios helps,
> > > Federico
I may have been on this occasion "the one who told", as maintainer for
fweb. We came to an agreement some time ago with the cweb maintainer
(Milan IIRC) about some "good practice" rules for our packages, and I
remember I have already pointed the maintainer for a new litprog
package to these.
However, these "rules" are mostly hidden in the mail archives, though
think I still have them in my fweb folder. Now it would be a good
idea IMHO to make these (or a similar set of rules) part of a standard
(set of) Debian doc. I recently read the emacsen people suggesting
sur a thing for their sub-policy; maybe we should work with them, and
make a proposal for our stuff (as originator of these "rules", I
volunteer to do this - the litprog rules - as my first Proposal).
> > Actually, on further investigation of the Debian Contents file, I have
> > figured out that there are only three literate programming systems on
> > Debian: nowebm, fweb and of course cweb (together with cweb-latex and
> > variants in the pipeline). Nowebm and fweb put their files in litprog
> > directories, so I'll just follow suit.
IIRC, cweb-latex does as well, and this rule does not apply to cweb,
only using plain TeX.
> I don't remember exactly who wrote to me. It was about one year ago.
> May was the fweb maintainer (not the cweb one). Anyway, I think
> having all the litprog stuff in a single directory is the best thing.
> Does cweb have .el emacs files? If yes, where do you plan to put them?
Well, this may be another point to add - something like
Yann Dirson | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
<firstname.lastname@example.org> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <email@example.com> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.mygale.org/~ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>