[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AUCTeX] Debian bug #311292 (preview.dtx)
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: [AUCTeX] Debian bug #311292 (preview.dtx) |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Jun 2006 16:39:50 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
"Davide G. M. Salvetti" <address@hidden> writes:
> Hi devs,
>
> I was reviewing some old preview-latex bug reports (preview-latex was
> the Debian package for preview-latex before the AUCTeX and preview-latex
> merge: now it has been superseded by the Debian auctex package), and I
> found this one year old one:
> <http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=311292;repeatmerged=no>.
>
> The submitter provided a detailed analysis and a patch; I don't know
> if the patch was ever reported upstream, as I was not the Debian
> preview-latex maintainer and the bug is not marked as reported
> upstream.
It was not reported upstream and it would have saved me a bit of work
just recently.
> The bug has since been fixed in latest preview.dtx and I'm just
> gonna close it, but there is a little difference between the way I
> see it fixed in preview.dtx and the way the bug reporter patch
> suggested, which I think might be of some interest of preview.dtx
> developers. Therefore, I would like to suggest you to review that
> patch, and to specifically pay attention to points 6 and 7 of the
> reporter analysis.
The analysis is correct and the current fix in preview-latex
consequently has the side effect described in connection with the
`delayed' option. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'll
fix this for the next release. A pity that the preview-latex package
maintainer has not considered passing this excellent report upstream.
Anyway, I've seen that AUCTeX 11.83 has already been committed into
unstable. Awesome!
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum