[texworks] inconsistens because of help-files?

[Paul A Norman]

Any way Christian,

I'm Still not sure what your expectation was with ...

>"I need to see everytime(!) a absolute actual and correct
Output without ? or old section names."

Paul

On 21 August 2011 13:04, Herbert Schulz <herbs at wideopenwest.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 20, 2011, at 6:36 PM, sigmundv at gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Furthermore, LaTeX writes a hint to the log file telling you whether
> >> an additional run is needed.  It makes sense to evaluate this hint.
> >> This can be done in Perl without much effort.  I'm looking forward to
> >> see this implemented in an MS-DOG batch file.
> >
>
> Howdy,
>
> And that's the difference between latexmk and make. The latexmk program
> does evaluate the log file as well as seeing if the files have changed (via
> md5 sums). it even determines if you are using the biblatex package and the
> biber back-end and runs the appropriate bibliography back-end.
>
> Like I've said, I'm using a Mac and have written configuration (rc) files
> for latexmk for use directly with TeXShop that take the use of the
> glossaries and other special needs packages into account. I've set up
> TeXworks to use those same ``engines/tools'' and other *nix systems could
> use many of them with little change but I know that Windows will require
> some adaptation. If you want to take a look at them you can download
> Latexmk426TeXshop.zip from <http://public.me.com/herbs2>. Sorry, I know
> nothing about Windows and how it works so I can't help to adapt the
> ``engines/tools'' for use on that OS.
>
> PS: I have nothing to do with latexmk directly but I am a happy user and I
> have been in contact with John Collins, the maintainer, over the years and
> have sent in bug reports and praise.
>
> Good Luck,
>
> Herb Schulz
> (herbs at wideopenwest dot com)
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://tug.org/pipermail/texworks/attachments/20110821/a17d9687/attachment-0001.html>