Re: [ELPA] some tex-related packages

[Arash Esbati <arash@gnu.org>]

Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> Paul Nelson <ultrono@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> How about "latexmk-continuous"?  (The names latex-flymake and
>> auctex-latexmk are both taken, and those packages do different things.  The
>> new feature is that the compilation takes place continuously rather than on
>> demand, with the errors reported in the buffer.)
>
> Sounds good and descriptive!

My suggestion is: For everything that depends on AUCTeX, prefix it with
auctex-, and for others which work with built-in mode as well, take tex-
as prefix.  Rationale: it makes things easier to find once you do 'M-x
list-packages RET'.

>>> This makes me think, have you communicated any of these features to the
>>> AUCTeX developers?  Perhaps it would make more sense to upstream these
>>> as patches instead of having too many little packages?
>>>
>>>
>> They've been communicated, and the first two have been discussed:

I think the agreement was to patch AUCTeX in order to provide enough
compat code so Paul's package would run smoothly.

>> I'd be happy with whatever makes the most sense, but figured submitting to
>> ELPA would make them readily available without introducing additional
>> burden on the AUCTeX maintainers.
>
> I'll let the AUCTeX maintainers decide.  That being said, I am sure
> they'd always appreciate a helping hand in general.

Disussion about upstreaming parts of Paul's code would be the next step,
I think, based on user feedback and request.  Reg. helping hands: Always
welcome, but I really wish that people take over which actually use
LaTeX/AUCTeX/RefTeX on a regular basis.  I can tell for Tassilo and
myself that we don't use LaTeX anymore, and that for many years now.

> It might just be my view, but having too many little packages makes it
> difficult for newcomers to get an overview and understand what they want
> or need.

I think that having small packages which do the job right isn't that
bad.  I wish package writers would be more in contact with AUCTeX
developers (Paul did it right), and the developers would be more
responsive to package author's requests (I tried to help as far as I
could).

Best, Arash