Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Dear all, 2015-11-04 23:29 GMT+01:00 Mosè Giordano : > Hi David, > > how about having only the opening braces as default value, ie ? This > keeps formulae in a single line, and somewhat preserves an acceptable > filling as well. I applied this change and added an ERT test to track

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Dear all, I've put on hold the release process just to try and address the problem with `LaTeX-fill-break-at-separators'. I don't think it's a real showstopper, I mean, more people complained about the old behavior than about the new one, but while we are at it it would be nice to fix it. Bye,

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Hi David, how about having only the opening braces as default value, ie ? This keeps formulae in a single line, and somewhat preserves an acceptable filling as well. Bye, Mosè 2015-11-04 21:05 GMT+01:00 Tassilo Horn : > David Kastrup writes: > >>> So the "if they

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

David Kastrup writes: > Mosè Giordano writes: > >> 2015-11-04 11:13 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : >>> Mosè Giordano writes: >>> 2015-11-04 10:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Siart : > On 4 Nov 2015 at 10:07, Mosè Giordano wrote:

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Hi David (and Mosè), It's not just preview-latex. It makes good sense to avoid line-wrapping stuff like $\sum_{i=0}^2 i$ in the middle even when not using preview-latex. Using preview-latex leads to overlong lines when a line break in the middle gets hidden. Which makes it a good idea in

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Mosè Giordano writes: > Hi Uwe, > > 2015-11-04 10:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Siart : >> On 4 Nov 2015 at 10:07, Mosè Giordano wrote: >> >>> any objection against releasing a new version of AUCTeX by the end of >>> this week, for example on Friday? AUCTeX 11.88.9 has been

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

2015-11-04 13:45 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Mosè Giordano writes: > >> 2015-11-04 11:13 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : >>> Mosè Giordano writes: >>> 2015-11-04 10:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Siart : > On 4 Nov 2015 at 10:07,

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Hi David, 2015-11-04 11:13 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Mosè Giordano writes: > >> Hi Uwe, >> >> 2015-11-04 10:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Siart : >>> On 4 Nov 2015 at 10:07, Mosè Giordano wrote: >>> any objection against releasing a new version of AUCTeX

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Mosè Giordano writes: > 2015-11-04 11:13 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : >> Mosè Giordano writes: >> >>> 2015-11-04 10:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Siart : On 4 Nov 2015 at 10:07, Mosè Giordano wrote: > any objection against releasing a

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Mosè Giordano writes: > 2015-11-04 13:45 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : >> Mosè Giordano writes: >> >>> 2015-11-04 11:13 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : Mosè Giordano writes: > 2015-11-04 10:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Siart

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

goj...@gmail.com writes: > Hi David (and Mosè), > > >> It's not just preview-latex. It makes good sense to avoid line-wrapping >> stuff like $\sum_{i=0}^2 i$ in the middle even when not using >> preview-latex. Using preview-latex leads to overlong lines when a line >> break in the middle gets

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

On 4 Nov 2015 at 10:07, Mosè Giordano wrote: > any objection against releasing a new version of AUCTeX by the end of > this week, for example on Friday? AUCTeX 11.88.9 has been released to > ELPA two weeks ago and no one lamented havoc so far. No objection from me as a (frenetic) user :-) I saw

Re: [AUCTeX] New release on Friday?

Hi Uwe, 2015-11-04 10:27 GMT+01:00 Uwe Siart : > On 4 Nov 2015 at 10:07, Mosè Giordano wrote: > >> any objection against releasing a new version of AUCTeX by the end of >> this week, for example on Friday? AUCTeX 11.88.9 has been released to >> ELPA two weeks ago and no one

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] [AUCTeX] new release?

2014-10-29 12:21 GMT+01:00 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at: Hi Mosè, Sorry for not having been clear, but that's what I've done and no, it doesn't work. That's why I asked help here. Thanks anyway! Ah, I didn't see it in git, so I thought you haven't done that. I tried locally, I

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] [AUCTeX] new release?

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Mosè Giordano wrote: Try replacing $Name: $ $Name: 11.88 $, building of preview.sty will fail. My (very low) understanding of the code is that in $Name: ... $ the dots can be replaced by release_major version_minor version (for a regular release) or nothing (for a

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Norbert, 2014-10-29 5:27 GMT+01:00 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at: Hi Mosè, On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Mosè Giordano wrote: by the values of the variables PREVIEWDATE and PREVIEWVERSION, set by automake, and are of the form 2014-06-24 and 11.88, the former for both PREVIEWDATE and

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

2014-10-29 12:21 GMT+01:00 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at: Hi Mosè, Sorry for not having been clear, but that's what I've done and no, it doesn't work. That's why I asked help here. Thanks anyway! Ah, I didn't see it in git, so I thought you haven't done that. I tried locally, I

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Mosè, On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Mosè Giordano wrote: by the values of the variables PREVIEWDATE and PREVIEWVERSION, set by automake, and are of the form 2014-06-24 and 11.88, the former for both PREVIEWDATE and PREVIEWVERSION, and the latter for PREVIEWVERSION when the last change is a regular

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi list, we haven't forget the plan to release a new version of AUCTeX, it just turned out there are some minor non-user-visible issues about the version variables in the preview package. In particular, the variables `preview-version' and `preview-release-date' rely on CVS tags, but we don't use

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi list, we haven't forget the plan to release a new version of AUCTeX, it just turned out there are some minor non-user-visible issues about the version variables in the preview package. In particular, the variables `preview-version' and `preview-release-date' rely on CVS tags, but we don't use

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Norbert, 2014-10-17 1:39 GMT+02:00 Mosè Giordano m...@gnu.org: 2014-10-17 0:17 GMT+02:00 Mosè Giordano m...@gnu.org: Hi Ken, 2014-10-16 23:38 GMT+02:00 Ken Brown kbr...@cornell.edu: On 10/11/2014 6:36 PM, Ken Brown wrote: On 10/10/2014 7:13 PM, Norbert Preining wrote: I will inquire

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Mosè sorry, missed that one .. Would you mind taking a look at the proposed patch? This is the last obstacle before the new release :-) The patch looks fine - I don't see any problem with it and Debian. But then, I am also not the one responsible fro the Debian packages, I just send a few

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

On 10/11/2014 6:36 PM, Ken Brown wrote: On 10/10/2014 7:13 PM, Norbert Preining wrote: I will inquire with texinfo people why makeinfo --pdf and texi2pdf behave differently. I just sent a bug report about this: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2014-10/msg00015.html And

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Ken, 2014-10-16 23:38 GMT+02:00 Ken Brown kbr...@cornell.edu: On 10/11/2014 6:36 PM, Ken Brown wrote: On 10/10/2014 7:13 PM, Norbert Preining wrote: I will inquire with texinfo people why makeinfo --pdf and texi2pdf behave differently. I just sent a bug report about this:

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

2014-10-17 0:17 GMT+02:00 Mosè Giordano m...@gnu.org: Hi Ken, 2014-10-16 23:38 GMT+02:00 Ken Brown kbr...@cornell.edu: On 10/11/2014 6:36 PM, Ken Brown wrote: On 10/10/2014 7:13 PM, Norbert Preining wrote: I will inquire with texinfo people why makeinfo --pdf and texi2pdf behave

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

On Sat, 11 Oct 2014, Ken Brown wrote: I just sent a bug report about this: Thanks. Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan TeX Live

Re: [AUCTeX-devel] [AUCTeX] new release?

[Debian lists stripped from recipients] * Mosè Giordano (2014-10-10) writes: Well, we only need someone authorized to upload files to the FTP server :-) Ralf can do that, but we don't hear from him in the last days. I'm here! (c: And I'd be available for the upload, as long as my internet

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

[Debian lists stripped from recipients] * Mosè Giordano (2014-10-10) writes: Well, we only need someone authorized to upload files to the FTP server :-) Ralf can do that, but we don't hear from him in the last days. I'm here! (c: And I'd be available for the upload, as long as my internet

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

* Norbert Preining (2014-10-11) writes: The point is that texi2html has been declared obsolete in Debian, and should not be used to build packages. This is actually a consequence of upstream pulling the plug: http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/ ...The Texi2HTML maintainers (one of whom

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Ralf! 2014-10-11 10:45 GMT+02:00 Ralf Angeli ang...@caeruleus.net: * Norbert Preining (2014-10-11) writes: The point is that texi2html has been declared obsolete in Debian, and should not be used to build packages. This is actually a consequence of upstream pulling the plug:

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

On 10/10/2014 7:13 PM, Norbert Preining wrote: I will inquire with texinfo people why makeinfo --pdf and texi2pdf behave differently. I just sent a bug report about this: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2014-10/msg00015.html Ken

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Norbert! 2014-10-10 2:59 GMT+02:00 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at: Dear AucTeX Masters, here is Norbert, from TeX Live and Debian TeX team. Recently I was playing around with updating auctex in Debian, and found lots of problems with the current package (there is no texi2html

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Mosè Giordano m...@gnu.org writes: Well, we only need someone authorized to upload files to the FTP server :-) Ralf can do that, but we don't hear from him in the last days. I've requested the authorization today; Tassilo, you should do that as well, if you haven't done so yet ;-) No, I

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Mosè, How should the absence of texi2html addressed? I use Debian but I didn't look into this so far. Well, there is texi2html, but it is a special package. texinfo since version 5.0, that is since quite some time, ships a decent makeinfo that can convert most things. If you can test for

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at writes: I have actually taken a look into your git repository, and made the attached patch for testing purposes. But it does not do checking of version of makeinfo ... Looks good to me except that using texinfo 5.2 I have % makeinfo auctex.texi # works

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Norbert, 2014-10-10 14:27 GMT+02:00 Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at: Hi Mosè, How should the absence of texi2html addressed? I use Debian but I didn't look into this so far. Well, there is texi2html, but it is a special package. texinfo since version 5.0, that is since quite some

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

Hi Mosè, On Fri, 10 Oct 2014, Mosè Giordano wrote: I get the same errors reported by Tassilo, and the rule make dist TAG=11.87 ?? I didn't see any report - where was it sent to? fails with your patch. How come AUCTeX fails to compile? Isn't texi2html a build dependency? I installed

Re: [AUCTeX] new release?

I get the same errors reported by Tassilo, and the rule make dist TAG=11.87 Ok, found it in the archives, didn't make it to the mailing list, strange. Anyway, why makeinfo --pdf and texi2pdf work differently, is a mystery to me... The man page of makeinfo tells me:

[AUCTeX] new release?

Dear AucTeX Masters, here is Norbert, from TeX Live and Debian TeX team. Recently I was playing around with updating auctex in Debian, and found lots of problems with the current package (there is no texi2html anymore, to list only one). So in fact, currently auctex fails to build from source