Tassilo Horn <[email protected]> writes: > David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > >> At any rate: while there was a wagonload of work invested in that >> area, it would appear that some of that meets the label "too clever". > > Seems so, especially wrt the single-user install. AUCTeX is the only > elisp package I know that you can't just unpack/clone, optionally > configure & make and then add that directory to load-path and be done.
Huh? How are any other package's info files going to end up compiled and placed within the Emacs info tree? > Nevertheless, it works fine for me, and is less hassle than the > documented way. I wonder if it would make sense to document that > instead of the current advice for user-installs in the docs. No. It never makes sense in the long run to document how to work around the design of software. If you ever feel the urge to do that, resist it. Change the design instead. Part of the complications are that the build system is essentially inherited from preview-latex. preview-latex needed to detect a working installation of AUCTeX, a working installation of Emacs or XEmacs, a working installation of LaTeX, and then design a way to work itself into it. When preview-latex and AUCTeX were consolidated into a single package, this was done with minimal effort, and part of the reason this was done with minimal effort was that moving a file in CVS is a nightmare. But that also means that the directory structure of the installed AUCTeX and that of the repository diverged. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ auctex mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/auctex
