AUCTeX configuration, hardwiring etc...

[David Kastrup]

Hi folks, I have decided that we won't need all those special options
after all. Really none of them.

Why? Because we can make do by just making everything relative to
lispdir, then using

make install-el # installs in ${lispdir}/preview
make lispdir=that install-elc
make lispdir=whatever install-startup

The only problem is that the startup file needs to do something like

(defvar TeX-lisp-directory
(if (file-directory-p
(expand-file-name "auctex" (file-name-directory load-file-name)))
(expand-file-name "auctex" (file-name-directory load-file-name))
@lisplispdir@))

Which is sick. So maybe we need something like
--with-package-lispdir[=auctex]

as a configure option that will hardcode

(expand-file-name "auctex" (file-name-directory load-file-name))
into @lisplispdir@

Sigh.

[David Kastrup]

Post by David Kastrup
Hi folks, I have decided that we won't need all those special options
after all. Really none of them.
Why? Because we can make do by just making everything relative to
lispdir, then using
make install-el # installs in ${lispdir}/preview
make lispdir=that install-elc
make lispdir=whatever install-startup
The only problem is that the startup file needs to do something like
(defvar TeX-lisp-directory
(if (file-directory-p
(expand-file-name "auctex" (file-name-directory load-file-name)))
(expand-file-name "auctex" (file-name-directory load-file-name))
@lisplispdir@))
Which is sick. So maybe we need something like
--with-package-lispdir[=auctex]
as a configure option that will hardcode
(expand-file-name "auctex" (file-name-directory load-file-name))
Sigh.

Ok, still in "think!" mode. How about having the startup file
carrying

(defvar TeX-lisp-directory
(expand-file-name @lispextralispdir@
(file-name-directory load-file-name)))

Then we have an option --with-extralispdir[=auctex] to configure.
Extra means "outside of load-path" with a bit of fantasy. If the
filename is absolute (which is fine for deb and RPM), the
load-file-name has no effect. If it is relative (for stuff like
XEmacs packages or when rolling a prepackaged Emacs that is installed
into unknown territory), one can use "." to get the same directory as
the startup file (which gets placed in lispdir).

Does this sound like a good scheme?

Uwe, I don't know why I did not see your posting from 0207, maybe I
have skipped over it and accidentally removed it or whatever. It has
Dejavu all over it for a different reason: I seem to remember that we
had pretty much the same discussion previously and code was placed
into the autoconf stuff. Maybe it was in the preview-latex version
and got overwritten again by the AUCTeX variant. Anyhow, the only
sensible thing to place stuff in by default is site-packages. It has
_always_ been the case that defaults for autoconf are for site-wide
installation (corresponding to a prefix of /usr/local/ commonly): it
is customary to be able to do make as a normal user, and then install
with sudo make install or similar.

[David Kastrup]

Post by David Kastrup

Post by David Kastrup
Which is sick. So maybe we need something like
--with-package-lispdir[=auctex]
as a configure option that will hardcode
(expand-file-name "auctex" (file-name-directory load-file-name))
Sigh.

Ok, still in "think!" mode. How about having the startup file
carrying
(defvar TeX-lisp-directory
(file-name-directory load-file-name)))
Then we have an option --with-extralispdir[=auctex] to configure.

I think that --with-package-lispdir is ok: you'll only need this
option when doing some package arranging stuff. I guess that I'll
probably be wreaking havoc on the preview-latex configuration stuff
now that I think I might have thought most of the stuff through. I
don't know whether I'll get to do the Makefile.in stuff Ralf has been
thinking about, though. Maybe after the release: then he'll probably
fix it anyway once it pollutes the AUCTeX CVS. I still don't know
what I should be asking with regard to picking apart dvipng at either
Savannah or Sourceforge.

I guess that I don't need to tell Sourceforge much right now and we
should be able to keep the CVS there intact for read access and dvipng
until the further fate of dvipng has been established.

[Jan-Ake Larsson]

Post by David Kastrup
(defvar TeX-lisp-directory
(file-name-directory load-file-name)))
Then we have an option --with-extralispdir[=auctex] to configure.
Extra means "outside of load-path" with a bit of fantasy. If the
filename is absolute (which is fine for deb and RPM), the
load-file-name has no effect. If it is relative (for stuff like
XEmacs packages or when rolling a prepackaged Emacs that is installed
into unknown territory), one can use "." to get the same directory as
the startup file (which gets placed in lispdir).
Does this sound like a good scheme?

(Sorry for being away from mail over the weekend.) This was actually
what I was going to suggest. But I do not like the name. How about

--with-auctex-lispdir[=auctex]

Anyway, in addition, we could test for the strings "yes" and "no" and
use autoconf's mechanism to translate "yes" to "auctex" and "no" to ""
(or so). The bonus is that we can use

--without-auctex-lispdir

(which autoconf will translate to "no") and automatically get all the
files in $lispdir, without a subdirectory. Transparent and intuitive.
(I do not think there is much need to install into "$lispdir/no" 8^))

Post by David Kastrup
Anyhow, the only
sensible thing to place stuff in by default is site-packages. It has
_always_ been the case that defaults for autoconf are for site-wide
installation (corresponding to a prefix of /usr/local/ commonly): it
is customary to be able to do make as a normal user, and then install
with sudo make install or similar.

Exactly. By the "principle of least surprise", this is what we should
do. It is Standard Behaviour.

/JÅ

[David Kastrup]

Post by Jan-Ake Larsson

Post by David Kastrup
(defvar TeX-lisp-directory
(file-name-directory load-file-name)))
Then we have an option --with-extralispdir[=auctex] to configure.
Extra means "outside of load-path" with a bit of fantasy. If the
filename is absolute (which is fine for deb and RPM), the
load-file-name has no effect. If it is relative (for stuff like
XEmacs packages or when rolling a prepackaged Emacs that is installed
into unknown territory), one can use "." to get the same directory as
the startup file (which gets placed in lispdir).
Does this sound like a good scheme?

(Sorry for being away from mail over the weekend.) This was actually
what I was going to suggest. But I do not like the name.

Neither did I.

Post by Jan-Ake Larsson
How about
--with-auctex-lispdir[=auctex]

I'd say that is one of the two contenders, the other being
--with-package-lispdir. Now the purpose of the --with type options is
that you can specify them for a batch of configures, and only the
relevant ones will get looked at. So --with-auctex-lispdir would
imply that this setting interests only AUCTeX. However, if one
compiles a bunch of together, those will typically share the places of
some stuff.

I am in particular thinking of preview-latex, obviously. If we keep
it in a subdirectory, you can still use and install it separately with
older AUCTeX installations, and as integral part of a then current
installation. If we just passed the package-lispdir down, that would
be more or less fine then.

But the option name is just a detail, and if it should prove
necessary, we can still change it easily enough in later versions.
Still, my vote is on --with-package-lispdir with a slight margin over
--with-auctex-lispdir. If somebody feels more strongly about this
than I do, I can also be persuaded to live with the other name.

Post by Jan-Ake Larsson
Anyway, in addition, we could test for the strings "yes" and "no"
and use autoconf's mechanism to translate "yes" to "auctex" and "no"
to "" (or so). The bonus is that we can use
--without-auctex-lispdir
(which autoconf will translate to "no") and automatically get all
the files in $lispdir, without a subdirectory. Transparent and
intuitive. (I do not think there is much need to install into
"$lispdir/no" 8^))

Tell that to Norway, the country of trolls...

[Jan-Ake Larsson]

Post by David Kastrup
But the option name is just a detail, and if it should prove
necessary, we can still change it easily enough in later versions.
Still, my vote is on --with-package-lispdir with a slight margin over
--with-auctex-lispdir.

Mine too.

Post by David Kastrup

Post by Jan-Ake Larsson
(I do not think there is much need to install into
"$lispdir/no" 8^))

Tell that to Norway, the country of trolls...

They'll have to file a bug report at autoconf themselves.
;-)

/JÅ