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

Sebastian Rahtz sebastian.rahtz at computing-services.oxford.ac.uk
Wed Feb 11 14:26:57 CET 2004

Harald Harders wrote:

> But you are not possible to guess which makeindex styles to use or how to
> generate glossary-like environments.
true. its an 80/20 solution

> Is this really important? For me it seems clear that a prebuilt dvi or pdf
> file with the same base name as the package is the corresponding
> documentation. Don't you agree?

no :-}

look at the packages out there. *many* of them don't follow 
this pattern

>   It is more complicated if the documentation has another name, e.g., for
> hyperref (manual.pdf).

for example

> Do you have some kind of idea how this could look like? Should the
> metadata contain the commands to produce the style/class files as well as
> the documentation?

yes, I believe so. see my tpm2 files

  I think, a Makefile could do the job, e.g., for
> numprint:
> Then, the automatic procedure could be to start
>     make texlive
> or similar for every package. The advantage of using makefiles is that
> this is a common known format. You just have to declare which tags have to
> be used, e.g., that every makefile has to provide the tag "texlive".

I agree. I could switch to this immediately with a special 
case saying "IF there is a Makefile with a targte 'texlive', 
then use it".

what should the target do? create a child tree "texmf" which 
  contains the complete setup, which I could copy into 
place? I'd be happy with that

  - get package
  - make texlive
  - move texmf to right place for further processing

Of course, 99.9% of the world has no idea what a Makefile is....
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