[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFR] templates://auctex/{auctex/templates}

David Kastrup wrote:
>> The issue is the dependencies from preview-latex-style, not the ones
>> from auctex.  If I don't have auctex installed, but I run across the
>> package description of p-l-s and think it sounds like something I
>> should try out, I get no warning that auctex would be useful.  (The
>> text also and more obviously implies a strong connection to emacs
>> which isn't reflected in the dependencies, but a "Suggests: auctex"
>> would cover that automatically.)
> It would be wrong.  preview-latex-style is used, for example, for
> previewing from within LyX (and LyX users tend to hate Emacs).  It is
> also used by ps4pdf, a LaTeX style allowing pstricks graphics in
> combination with PDFTeX.

Ah!  So where it all went wrong was when I asked way back near the
start of this thread:

# I don't see how these can both be right.  It (a) exists to allow 
# previewing in Emacs but (b) doesn't need to suggest any emacsen? 

The answer should have been that (a) was wrong and that the package
description shouldn't mention Emacs at all (or if it did it should
at least mention LyX equally prominently).  Is that right?

>>> Preview-latex-style is *not*at*all* usefull for a user of Emacs,
>>> unless they have auctex installed.
>> This is evidence that p-l-s should have a dependency on auctex (which
>> Depends: emacs) instead of directly on emacs.
> No.  You are confusing your dependencies.  AUCTeX requires
> preview-latex-style, not the other way round.

That doesn't help somebody who sees p-l-s in the package-lists and
is persuaded to install it without realising it has any connection
to auctex. 
>>>>> Why would one want that?  The whole point of preview-latex-style is
>>>>> that it is useful without Emacs.
>>>> No, the README.gz and the package synopsis are quite clear that it's
>>>> primarily intended for use with Emacs.
>>> David is the author of preview-latex-style and the current maintainer of
>>> auctex.  You'd better believe him.
>> If he disagrees with the docs, that's a problem, but I'm ready and
>> willing to help fix it.
> Uh, I wrote the docs.

Yup, sounds like a problem.  How should we fix those docs (starting
with the package description) to ensure that they don't leave people
arguing against you?

> And the _separate_ preview/latex/README for
> preview.dtx states:

I was talking about /usr/share/doc/preview-latex-style/README.gz:

# While the primary focus of the package has been the support of editing
# in Emacs buffers augmented with preview images, its possible uses are
# not limited to that.

That makes it exactly the sort of "primarily but not exclusively"
that I'd expect to see expressed by a Suggests: dependency (or
indeed a Recommends:).

> How anybody can claim from this README that the preview style is
> primarily intended for Emacs is utterly beyond me.

The explanation's simple; I didn't read that file.  In fact I still
can't find that file.  What package is it in?
> And the condescending manner in which I am told that I am too stupid to
> understand the documentation I wrote is really something to be
> cherished.

I'm not saying you're stupid.  I'm not even saying you're wrong.
I'm saying that users have to be able to trust the docs to be right,
and it was reading the docs that led me into arguing with you.  We
badly need some input into the process of improving the package
description from the people who understand the package.
>> This discussion is not about the binary package auctex.  Look at the
>> package preview-latex-style; neither its package description nor its
>> headers express any dependency connection with auctex.
> And your point was?

The functionality advertised by the package description should be
available to people who think "that package sounds good, I'll
install it".  If in reality that functionality requires extra
packages to be installed (such as emacs, or auctex, or lyx) then
it's the job of the text and/or dependencies to make that clear.
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)

Reply to: