[tex-live] texlive 2003 -- acronym package missing doc
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?
look at the packages out there. *many* of them don't follow
> It is more complicated if the documentation has another name, e.g., for
> hyperref (manual.pdf).
> 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
> 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