Stefan Monnier writes:
>> I've hoped that with the new Git ELPA, we could just checkout the
>> savannah auctex repository as submodule, and then add some hacks to the
>> makefiles to produce tarballs suitable for ELPA. Won't work, no?
>
> No, because:
>
>I'd very much prefer not having to ru
Tassilo Horn writes:
> Stefan Monnier writes:
>
>>> I've hoped that with the new Git ELPA, we could just checkout the
>>> savannah auctex repository as submodule, and then add some hacks to the
>>> makefiles to produce tarballs suitable for ELPA. Won't work, no?
>>
>> No, because:
>>
>>I'd
David Kastrup writes:
>>> No, because:
>>>
>>>I'd very much prefer not having to run code from
>>>the package itself.
>>>
>>> so I can't just run your makefile rule(s).
>>
>> Ok, I see.
>
> It is not clear to me why the act of importing a runnable version of
> AUCTeX into ELPA should be p
>> It is not clear to me why the act of importing a runnable version of
>> AUCTeX into ELPA should be precluded from running a Makefile rule. It
>> is not like ELPA can directly access git repositories and extract
>> whatever it wants, so the import will always involve explicit steps.
Yes, GNU EL
Stefan Monnier writes:
>>> It is not clear to me why the act of importing a runnable version of
>>> AUCTeX into ELPA should be precluded from running a Makefile rule.
>>> It is not like ELPA can directly access git repositories and extract
>>> whatever it wants, so the import will always involve
It is not clear to me why the act of importing a runnable version of
AUCTeX into ELPA should be precluded from running a Makefile rule.
It is not like ELPA can directly access git repositories and extract
whatever it wants, so the import will always involve explicit steps.
>> Ye
Stefan Monnier writes:
>>> I'd be OK with splitting auctex into 2 packages, but does
>>> preview-latex work without auctex?
>> No. It would be nice to factor out some of its quite sophisticated
>> functionality into something independent from AUCTeX, LaTeX and in fact
>> also TeX, but at the cur
