oberdiek at uni-freiburg.de
Mon Jun 16 21:47:55 CEST 2008
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:41:43PM -0500, Karl Berry wrote:
> I can't see, why pdftex is in texmf, whereas
> its successor luatex is in texmf-dist?
> I won't bore you with the historical circumstances that led to this.
> I moved pdftex to texmf-dist. Thanks.
> I don't think it's worth investing time in debating which things end up
> in which tree. There is no one right answer. The only rational way to
> find documentation is to search via texdoc/locate/whatever, not browse
Both texdoc and locate require the name of the documentation and
they will not show a file listing with all relevant documentation.
"texdoc pdftex" or "texdoc xetex" fail. But TDS says in principle,
where the documentation files reside.
In case of pdfTeX is shows different documentation files, examples, ...
if I have the luck to hit the right texmf tree.
Therefore I can't see the benefit of having three texmf trees,
it just make life harder.
> to some location and "expect" it to be there. One person's expectation
> is another person's total surprise.
The organisation of nearly 70000 files can't be based on surprise
entirely. There is TDS that at least should reduce the surprise.
> The top-level doc.html file (not updated for 2008 yet) was my attempt to
> provide an autogenerated (hence should be accurate/complete) index file
> that could be searched. Not that I've ever gotten a single comment
> about it, so I don't think it is used. I admit I don't use it myself :).
> So it goes.
I admit, I have never looked into it. I thought it contains some
short general intro to TeX Live.
I see, you have also pointers to the directories. Another argument
to move doc source files out of TDS:doc.
> We've talked about various ways of improving texdoc already. Here's
> another one: good full-text search of all files (especially PDF). Now
> there's a project ...
Or a TeX macro index, showing where a macro is defined and documented.
Heiko <oberdiek at uni-freiburg.de>
More information about the tex-live