1 |
Hi, |
2 |
|
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > I don't think documentation using texinfo.tex (the documentation |
5 |
> > that comes in .texi files) uses latex --- I believe that |
6 |
> > texinfo.tex uses just plain tex. |
7 |
|
8 |
actually you got a point; but let me show how the boundary is small: |
9 |
|
10 |
take a texi file, process it with tex -> it works. |
11 |
remove the \input texinfo at the beginning -> fails |
12 |
|
13 |
run: |
14 |
$ tex -ini -jobname=texinfo -progname=texinfo texinfo.ini |
15 |
|
16 |
that will give you: texinfo.fmt and texinfo.log in the current directory |
17 |
run as root: |
18 |
# ln -s tex /usr/bin/texinfo |
19 |
|
20 |
then run texinfo on your .texi file where you have removed the \input |
21 |
(and in the same directory where you had texinfo.fmt) -> it works |
22 |
funny heh ? |
23 |
|
24 |
what is a format ? it's just : run tex on a file, dump the memory |
25 |
of the interpreter and write it to a file. |
26 |
|
27 |
what is latex ? bah it's just more or less the same thing: some tex |
28 |
macros and definitions, processed through a tex engine to get latex.fmt |
29 |
If you check it, the latex executable is just a symlink to the tex |
30 |
engine used by your distribution ;) |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
Seeing that, should we call it tex, texi or texinfo ? is latex really |
34 |
latex or should we call it tex ? |
35 |
I don't have any answer to that, and I think we should have useflag |
36 |
names that refer to commonly used names for what they represent. If you |
37 |
tell me that .texi files are commonly referenced as tex stuff, then why |
38 |
not tex; but I'd call it texinfo. |
39 |
|
40 |
|
41 |
> Do we even provide plain tex via an ebuild or useflag? |
42 |
|
43 |
for the above reasons, we have tex ;) |
44 |
|
45 |
Regards, |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
Alexis. |