Bug#350336: ITP: latex-mk -- tool for managing LaTeX projects
* Vincent Danjean <Vincent.Danjean@ens-lyon.org> [2006-02-03 02:11]:
> Yes, when I will have some free time. Probably one or two months from
> now. But, it is possible that I try to merge my work with latex-mk.
> I do not look at it in details yet. So I do not know if it is
> possible or not.
That would be a lovely idea. latex-mk has some features that seem to
lack in latex-utils. The converse is probably true.
> >I think a better place would be:
> >
> > /usr/share/latex-utils/LaTeX.mk
>
> Previous version where using this. However, this needs that the
> user remember the full path.
>
> 'make' automatically look for included files in /usr/include. I
> decided to take advantage of this. (and LaTeX.mk is still a file
> to include, even if it is not a C or C++ header file).
You are right but I was just following the FHS recommendation to the
letter. Many other programs also include files but never use
/usr/include.
It is maybe time to fix GNU make? I see that, at least in Debian, GNU
make has following directories in its default include path:
/usr/include
/usr/gnu/include
/usr/local/include
None of these are appropriate for the Debian packages, I think. However,
it would be very simple to patch the Debian make package to accept an
extra directory, like "/usr/share/mk" or "/usr/share/gnu-make", or
whichever is FHS-compliant.
I might fill a bug report about this.
> This setup allows a user to write its Makefile with only 'include
> LaTeX.mk'. And if he tries to compile its document on a system without
> my debian package, he just have to call : make
> -Idir_of_local_install_of_latex-utils .... This is very usefull as a
> lot of my latex documents are collaborative work (under CVS) with
> people having very different OS (MacOSX, ...)
I must agree, your arguments are quite compelling. I would though prefer
that the issue is addressed in the make sources (see above).
Amicalement,
--
Rafael
Reply to: