[texdoc] diagnostics

Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard mpg at elzevir.fr
Mon Feb 22 12:00:49 CET 2010

Hi Karl,

Karl Berry a écrit :
> Regarding the problem of no displays, it seems rather pervasive.
> gnome-open doesn't give any self-identification either.  evince gives a
> clue, at least.
Too bad. Maybe I should check if DISPLAY is set before trying to display
anything on Unix? Then I could issue a warning message before trying to lauch
the viewer. (And/or default to list mode.)

> Question 1) why is it choosing evince instead of xdvi?  I'm not
> running any window system at all, it's a remote ssh.
Because evince is in the PATH. If it cannot detect a know desktop environment
(Gnome, KDE, XFCE) texdoc sequentially checks for known viewers in the PATH and
picks the first one found. evince happens to come before xdvi in this list. I
think the idea behind that was that xdvi is installed by default, but not
evince, so if evince is installed, it is likely to be a conscious choice, so
maybe it means the users prefers it...

> Same non-output.  2) So what does -v1 do? 
> 3) Also, is there any possibility of making the argument to -v be optional?
> It is nearly unprecedented to be *forced* to give a verbosity level,
> instead of having -v be a default.
> 4) Also, the standard long option name is --verbose, not --verbosity.
I guess I should rework this whole verbosity stuff. How about the following:

-v, --verbose	Be more verbose.
-q, --quiet	Be less verbose.

-v could not be repeated, and would display the viewer command before launching
it, and maybe a few other informations.

-q would suppress warnings, -q -q would suppress even errors (except internal
errors, since I'm not sure how to suppress them). (And of course one would like
to be able to say -qq rather than -q -q but that's another problem.)

> Ok, so I try -d.  Now I get much too *much* output.  Tens of thousands
> of lines (before I stopped it) about processing every potential
> directory and every potential file.  This is not helpful to anyone who
> just wants to get some clues about why the doc was not displaying.  At
> least have a warning in the help message about "extremely voluminous
> output".
Right. I suppressed the greatest part of this output some time ago, but I
realise now that I did it only in the development branch for some reason. (With
texdoc from master, full debug output is something like 200 lines, which is far
more reasonable.)


More information about the texdoc mailing list