[tex-live] texlive 2003 -- acronym package missing doc

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Wed Feb 11 13:28:16 CET 2004

Harald Harders wrote:

> In my opinion, it is one of the main tasks to define a procedure that
> guarantees the documentation to be installed, too. At work, I have a teTeX
> installation with all documentation installed. It is nice simply to type
> in "texdoc packagename" and to get the documentation.

I agree, its good if that works. With either decent 
metadata; a sufficiently intelligent installation script; or 
a reasonable anount of time, it would be possible to achieve 
this. Unfortunately we don't have any of those!

> But this is problematic because you don't know how often it has to be
> compiled, which extra programmes have to be used (e.g., makeindex, bibtex,
> etc.).

I run all of them, always, on every file, several times.

> Weren't it possible to test whether doing latex on the dtx file
> compiles without error and if so take the precompiled dvi or pdf file?

how do I know what the dvi or PDF file is made from?
how do I know which dtx file to run?

> Have you spoken with Thomas Esser how he chooses the documentation file
> for teTeX? I've never had problems with missing documentation files there.

Thomas is a lot more careful than me, is the simple answer. 
And has to deal with quite a lot smaller collection of packages.

my answer is, as always, metadata.
Sebastian Rahtz      Information Manager
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6NN. Phone +44 1865 283431

More information about the tex-live mailing list