[AUCTeX] [RFC] Do not distribute a package for Windows

[Mosè Giordano]

Dear all, in particular Windows users,

I'm testing the release process, in view of the upcoming release of
AUCTeX 11.90.

At every release, one of the most annoying part is to adapt the
Makefile for distributing an AUCTeX package for Windows. For example,
I have to adjust the Makefile for the name of Emacs's binary package
and its file structure (they change every now and then). To make
things even more annoying, starting with Emacs 25.1 there are two
packages, one for 32-bit systems and the other for the 64-bit ones, so
I don't know whether we should distribute two AUCTeX packages as well.

My propose: do not distribute a package for Windows. Reasons:

* the package for Windows is actually very limited: it is bound to the
Emacs's version it's built for (we usually build it only for the
latest Emacs version) and must be first package installed in Emacs.

* AUCTeX is in GNU ELPA, which is cross-platform and *much* more easy to use.

If no one has objections, I will *not* distribute a Windows package
for AUCTeX 11.90. My idea is also to make it clearer on the website
that the preferred way to install AUCTeX is through GNU ELPA,
independently from the operating system used. What do you think?

Bye,
Mosè

[g***@gmail.com]

Hi Mosè,

Parenthetical thank you, first: I've noticed that the latest
AucTeX version has a new indentation and filling system for
displaymath environments that is simply fantastic. Thank you
all developers for this!

Regarding the package distribution. I'm a Windows 32-bit
user (both Windows and I are 32-bit), so let me understand:
as long as I update AucTeX via package-list-packages, I'll
have no problems? If that's the case I have no objections to
your proposal.

Cheers,
J

Post by Mosè Giordano
Dear all, in particular Windows users,
I'm testing the release process, in view of the upcoming release of
AUCTeX 11.90.
At every release, one of the most annoying part is to adapt the
Makefile for distributing an AUCTeX package for Windows. For example,
I have to adjust the Makefile for the name of Emacs's binary package
and its file structure (they change every now and then). To make
things even more annoying, starting with Emacs 25.1 there are two
packages, one for 32-bit systems and the other for the 64-bit ones, so
I don't know whether we should distribute two AUCTeX packages as well.
* the package for Windows is actually very limited: it is bound to the
Emacs's version it's built for (we usually build it only for the
latest Emacs version) and must be first package installed in Emacs.
* AUCTeX is in GNU ELPA, which is cross-platform and *much* more easy to use.
If no one has objections, I will *not* distribute a Windows package
for AUCTeX 11.90. My idea is also to make it clearer on the website
that the preferred way to install AUCTeX is through GNU ELPA,
independently from the operating system used. What do you think?
Bye,
Mosè

[Mosè Giordano]

Hi,

Regarding the package distribution. I'm a Windows 32-bit user (both Windows
and I are 32-bit), so let me understand: as long as I update AucTeX via
package-list-packages, I'll have no problems?

That's correct. I want to push forward the use of ELPA (on all
systems), I don't see any point in keeping distributing a package
that made much sense only when there was no other simple way to
install AUCTeX.

By the way, I forgot to add this to the reasons:

* the Windows package we distribute isn't particularly fun to update,
instead updating AUCTeX with ELPA is easy and we issue frequent
updates with bug fixes and new features along the way (so you don't
even need to wait for a new stable release to get them).

Bye,
Mosè

[Arash Esbati]

Hi Mosè,

Post by Mosè Giordano
If no one has objections, I will *not* distribute a Windows package
for AUCTeX 11.90.

+1.

Post by Mosè Giordano
My idea is also to make it clearer on the website that the preferred
way to install AUCTeX is through GNU ELPA, independently from the
operating system used. What do you think?

Actually, I think that this decision is overdue. I suggest that we also
emphasize more in the official documentation that ELPA is the preferred
way to go. WDYT?

Best, Arash

[Mosè Giordano]

Hi Arash,

Post by Arash Esbati
I suggest that we also
emphasize more in the official documentation that ELPA is the preferred
way to go. WDYT?

The installation section of the manual starts with

The simplest way of installing AUCTeX is by using the Emacs package manager
integrated in Emacs 24 and greater (ELPA).

and the description of the process takes more or less one other line.
It looks pretty clear to me, but this isn't probably sufficient, since
sometimes I see people in trouble trying to compile the package from
source. If you have ideas on how to improve it, please go ahead.

Bye,
Mosè

[Arash Esbati]

Hi Mosè,

Post by Mosè Giordano

Post by Arash Esbati
I suggest that we also
emphasize more in the official documentation that ELPA is the preferred
way to go. WDYT?

The installation section of the manual starts with
The simplest way of installing AUCTeX is by using the Emacs package manager
integrated in Emacs 24 and greater (ELPA).
and the description of the process takes more or less one other line.
It looks pretty clear to me, but this isn't probably sufficient, since
sometimes I see people in trouble trying to compile the package from
source. If you have ideas on how to improve it, please go ahead.

I think one point that may be confusing is your quote above from section
"1.2 Installing AUCTeX" and this part from "1.3 Quick Start":

If AUCTeX is installed, you might still need to activate it, by
inserting

(load "auctex.el" nil t t)

in your user init file.(1) If you’ve installed AUCTeX from the Emacs
package manager (ELPA), you must not have this line in your user init
file. The installation procedure already cares about loading AUCTeX
correctly.

My suggestion is to have in "1.2 Installing AUCTeX" something like:

The modern and strongly recommended way of installing AUCTeX is by
using the Emacs package manager integrated in Emacs 24 and greater
(ELPA) ... That’s all. See section "1.3 Quick Start" for further
instructions after this step.

Before I write some text: If I get it right, one can have
(package-initialize) in his .emacs and then the sentence from "1.3 Quick
Start" does not apply anymore. Is this correct?

Best, Arash

[Mosè Giordano]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Hi Mosè,

Post by Mosè Giordano

Post by Arash Esbati
I suggest that we also
emphasize more in the official documentation that ELPA is the preferred
way to go. WDYT?

The installation section of the manual starts with
The simplest way of installing AUCTeX is by using the Emacs package manager
integrated in Emacs 24 and greater (ELPA).
and the description of the process takes more or less one other line.
It looks pretty clear to me, but this isn't probably sufficient, since
sometimes I see people in trouble trying to compile the package from
source. If you have ideas on how to improve it, please go ahead.

I think one point that may be confusing is your quote above from section
If AUCTeX is installed, you might still need to activate it, by
inserting
(load "auctex.el" nil t t)
in your user init file.(1) If you’ve installed AUCTeX from the Emacs
package manager (ELPA), you must not have this line in your user init
file. The installation procedure already cares about loading AUCTeX
correctly.
The modern and strongly recommended way of installing AUCTeX is by
using the Emacs package manager integrated in Emacs 24 and greater
(ELPA) ... That’s all. See section "1.3 Quick Start" for further
instructions after this step.
Before I write some text: If I get it right, one can have
(package-initialize) in his .emacs and then the sentence from "1.3 Quick
Start" does not apply anymore. Is this correct?

One must *not* manually load AUCTeX when it's installed via ELPA, no
matter if `package-initialize' is called or not. Indeed, this is
sometimes another source of ambiguity for newcomers.

Bye,
Mosè

[Arash Esbati]

Post by Mosè Giordano

Post by Arash Esbati
Before I write some text: If I get it right, one can have
(package-initialize) in his .emacs and then the sentence from "1.3 Quick
Start" does not apply anymore. Is this correct?

One must *not* manually load AUCTeX when it's installed via ELPA, no
matter if `package-initialize' is called or not. Indeed, this is
sometimes another source of ambiguity for newcomers.

Thanks for the clarification. What do you think about the change
attached?

[Mosè Giordano]

Hi Arash,

Post by Arash Esbati

Post by Mosè Giordano

Post by Arash Esbati
Before I write some text: If I get it right, one can have
(package-initialize) in his .emacs and then the sentence from "1.3 Quick
Start" does not apply anymore. Is this correct?

One must *not* manually load AUCTeX when it's installed via ELPA, no
matter if `package-initialize' is called or not. Indeed, this is
sometimes another source of ambiguity for newcomers.

Thanks for the clarification. What do you think about the change
attached?

Thanks for taking care of this, your changes look good to me.

Side comment. Since AUCTeX is in GNU ELPA and this repository is
activated by default, the installation procedure could be further
simplified to

M-x package-install RET auctex RET

However, the current procedure makes sure that the latest version of
the package is grabbed (otherwise one may end up with an old one), so
in the end maybe it's better to stick with current procedure.

Let's hope that this will help people that want to install the package!

Bye,
Mosè

[Mosè Giordano]

Hi Arash,

I built the manual as .pdf and some TOC entries are misplaced (excerpt
attached). I have texinfo version 2016-08-16.19 here. Can you
reproduce this? TIA.

Do you mean that some page numbers go outside the margins? Yes, I can
reproduce this, but it was this way also in 11.89 manual
(http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/auctex/11.89-extra/auctex.pdf), so it's not a
recent regression. Probably something changed in texinfo.

Bye,
Mosè

[Arash Esbati]

Hi Mosè,

Post by Mosè Giordano

I built the manual as .pdf and some TOC entries are misplaced (excerpt
attached). I have texinfo version 2016-08-16.19 here. Can you
reproduce this? TIA.

Do you mean that some page numbers go outside the margins? Yes, I can
reproduce this, but it was this way also in 11.89 manual
(http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/auctex/11.89-extra/auctex.pdf), so it's not a
recent regression. Probably something changed in texinfo.

Yes, I meant the page numbers. I took the pdf file from here

https://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/manual/auctex.pdf

and indeed, it says Version 11.88, 2014-10-29. I should have checked
better :-[

One other thing I didn't check is if my last change to install.texi also
works with makeinfo -- I just ran pdftex on the file. Invoking `make'
in doc/ says

install.texi:25: @ref reference to nonexistent node `Quick Start'
make: *** [Makefile:179: ../INSTALL] Error 1

I can't figure out why. Any hint?

Best, Arash

[Mosè Giordano]

Post by g***@gmail.com
Hi Mosè,

Post by Mosè Giordano

I built the manual as .pdf and some TOC entries are misplaced (excerpt
attached). I have texinfo version 2016-08-16.19 here. Can you
reproduce this? TIA.

Do you mean that some page numbers go outside the margins? Yes, I can
reproduce this, but it was this way also in 11.89 manual
(http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/auctex/11.89-extra/auctex.pdf), so it's not a
recent regression. Probably something changed in texinfo.

Yes, I meant the page numbers. I took the pdf file from here
https://www.gnu.org/software/auctex/manual/auctex.pdf
and indeed, it says Version 11.88, 2014-10-29. I should have checked
better :-[

You got me. I hoped that no one would have noticed that I didn't move
the manual for 11.89 there, before the next release ;-)

Post by g***@gmail.com
One other thing I didn't check is if my last change to install.texi also
works with makeinfo -- I just ran pdftex on the file. Invoking `make'
in doc/ says
make: *** [Makefile:179: ../INSTALL] Error 1

I guess the problem is that doc/install.texi alone is used to create
the INSTALL file. Since the reference to post-installation is not
needed there, I think that you can safely wrap the whole sentence
starting with "Once the installation is completed" inside a "@ifclear
rawfile".

Bye,
Mosè

[Arash Esbati]

Post by Mosè Giordano
You got me. I hoped that no one would have noticed that I didn't move
the manual for 11.89 there, before the next release ;-)

I can keep a secret ;-)

Post by Mosè Giordano

Post by Arash Esbati
One other thing I didn't check is if my last change to install.texi also
works with makeinfo -- I just ran pdftex on the file. Invoking `make'
in doc/ says
make: *** [Makefile:179: ../INSTALL] Error 1

I guess the problem is that doc/install.texi alone is used to create
the INSTALL file. Since the reference to post-installation is not
needed there, I think that you can safely wrap the whole sentence
rawfile".

Many thanks, that did the trick.

Best, Arash