Bug#557861: texdoc and support_zipped
On 05/01/2010 16:54, Norbert Preining wrote:
> Indeed it does, but you need to change the viewers. The automatically
> selected ones (gnome-open in my case) return immediately, thus the
> temp file will be removed and all gone.
>
You're right. I forgot to mention that.
It confirms my feeling that support_zipped should not be enabled by default. It
asks for too much control over too many things.
> I would suggest to:
> - turn it into a normal option
> - document it in texdoc.cnf cleanly
> - mention that the automatically selected viewers will most probably
> not work (gnome-open immediately returns, and I assume the same for
> kde-open etc)
> - *but* leave it disabled under normal circumstances
>
I'll probably do that.
> That does not change much (but the making the option a real one, which
> in fact is already prepared, becasue there are parts where you check
> for C.support_zipped!!),
No, options are in the config table. C is for constants. (Identifiers in
constants.tlu that look global are accessed (read-only) via the C table outside.
This is a pretty standard Lua trick, but I should probably document the fact.)
>> Norbert, please don't hesitate to ask me if you think something should be
>> changed in texdoc (or its documentation).
>
> Well, there is no documentation of it, at least none that I grasped
> that it has to be directly in constants.tlu ;-) See my suggestion
> from above.
>
Documenting undocumented facts counts as changing documentation :-)
> Yup, if not another RC bug had to be fixed we probably would already be
> there. BTW: The telxive packages currently in unstable already have
> the above changes ;-)
>
Nice.
> ------------------
> One more thing: I was a bit puzzled that texdoc does not look into
> TEXMFSYSCONFIG or TEXMFCONFIG /texdoc/texdoc.cnf
> In upstream texlive that would be
> .../2009/texmf-config (TEXMFSYSCONFIG)
> ~/.texlive2009/texmf-config (TEXMFCONFIG)
> on Debian it would be
> /etc/texmf (TEXMFSYSCONFIG)
> ~/.texlive/texmf-config (TEXMFCONFIG)
>
Hum, that's probably because I always forget they exist :-) Do you see any
practical use case for configuration files here? I'm slightly reluctant to add
yet another level of configuration files for texdoc...
Manuel.
Reply to: