auctex/CHANGES

[David Kastrup]

Jerry James <james at xemacs.org> writes:

> Every time I build packages, the next "cvs up" tells me that I have a
> modified xemacs-packages/auctex/CHANGES.  The diff is always this:
>
> Index: xemacs-packages/auctex/CHANGES
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /pack/xemacscvs/XEmacs/packages/xemacs-packages/auctex/CHANGES,v
> retrieving revision 1.12
> diff -d -u -r1.12 CHANGES
> --- xemacs-packages/auctex/CHANGES	2005/11/20 08:52:38	1.12
> +++ xemacs-packages/auctex/CHANGES	2006/07/31 17:14:19
> @@ -1,6 +1,3 @@
> -Changes and New Features in AUCTeX
> -**********************************
> -
>  News in 11.55
>  =============
>  
> I see that CHANGES is generated from texi/changes.texi.  The top of that
> file starts with this:
>
> @ifset rawfile
> @chapheading Changes and New Features in @AUCTeX{}
>
> @end ifset
>
> So obviously rawfile is not set.  We could add "-D rawfile" to
> RUN_MAKEINFO_INDIVIDUAL, but I don't think we want to do that,
> judging by its effects on FAQ and INSTALL.  Just removing the @ifset
> and @end lines works for me.  Does anybody know why they are there?

Given that version 11.55 is 1.5 years old and the next version after
it almost a year, it seems appropriate not to talk about "New
Features" here.

I don't know your rationale for not using the "rawfile" toggle when
generating raw files instead of info files, but the upstream
distribution clearly generates those files with this option set in
order to avoid info-like cross references, replacing them with
explicit descriptions where appropriate.

If you choose a nonstandard setup for generating those files, leading
to different content than that of the main distribution, I find the
claim that the completed XEmacs package from the XEmacs CVS tree fully
satisfies the GPL condition

      3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
    under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
    Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

        a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
        source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
        1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

[Options b) and c) are not taken and elided here]

    The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
    making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
    code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus
    any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    to control compilation and installation of the executable.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I don't really think it an appropriate idea to distribute a set of
files compiled with different than the standard settings without also
distributing the responsible scripts and settings.

Since you presumably start with AUCTeX from its distribution tarball,
is there anything wrong in just checking in the requisite precompiled
files in the same form as they are already in the tarball?  That way,
no options or scripts of yourself are involved and would warrant
distribution, and your files don't differ from those of upstream.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum