[texdoc] [tex-live] texdoc index

Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard mpg at elzevir.fr
Tue Jan 3 21:33:26 CET 2012


Le 28/12/2011 02:42, Reinhard Kotucha a écrit :
>  > Sure, LPPL.txt is present only in several doc directories of texlive,
>  > and only one such directory (plnfss) does not contain pdf file so
>  > probably the problem is only here. The easiest way to fix it would be
>  > to produce plnfss.pdf from plnfss.txt
> It's not a fix in my opinion but a workaround.  At an earlier
> discussion someone proposed to remove the file LPPL.tex.  But can this
> be the ultimate solution?  Other packages come with plenty of
> non-documentation files too and texdoc somehow has to deal with them
> anyway.
Absolutely. This was (and still is) one of the big goals of the current
incarnation of texdoc (compared to the shell script's -s option eg).

> You see that plnfss.txt first gets a much higher score than LPPL.txt
> due to the "exact match" but it's obviously discarded later.  I think
> it shouldn't be discarded.  Finally both files have the same score
> though the system already detected that plnfss.txt is more appropriate
> than LPPL.txt.

> Here, scores are cumulative.  It's obviously "bad extension" which
> doesn't add its value to the scoring system but instead resets it.
> This seems to be unintentional.
In fact it is intentional but obviously a bad decision since it looses too much

I intend to extensively review texdoc's scoring system since it has many such
flaws (the biggest other one is not having a proper notion of "package") and has
become difficult to understant even for me, so I'd like to make it clearer,
better and more maintainable. This is the very first item in my texdoc list, but
I don't have a time estimate since it's no small task.


More information about the texdoc mailing list