Re: fullpage.sty replacement [WAS: Problem with LaTeX snippets preview]

[Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>]

Hi Nick,

On Sep 29, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Nick Dokos wrote:

> My $0.02:
>
> Let me point out that a dependency on soul.sty was introduced in order
> to deal with strike-through emphasis in the LaTeX exporter. And guess
> where soul.sty resides (on Debian/Ubuntu): in the texlive-latex-extra
> package. So it seems to me that replacing the use of the fullpage
> package by its contents is not the best solution: it would be better  
> to
> document the dependency (and other such dependencies). Keeping the
> dependency on fullpage.sty would also insulate org-mode from missing
> future changes to it - however unlikely that event happens to be.
>
> Also, the main difference between these two is that if soul.sty is not
> present, then when you try to process the exported latex file, you get
> an explicit error message that fingers the problem exactly, whereas
> without fullpage.sty, the preview failed silently. If the latter  
> failure
> could be made visible, then the problem would be solved (and this
> solution would cover other similar failures as well).

These are valid points!

However:

- Fullpage is a trivial ad very small package that only
   changes margins.  Even if it changes at some point, there is no  
reason
   for Org to follow this change.

- I'd like to have few dependencies if possible.

- People who use strike-through faces should know better :-)
   Well, I know there are exceptions where this does make sense.

The bad thing about packages that are in some TeX distros, but not
in others, is that you have to start documenting these dependencies
on a system-by-system basis, and I'd rather not go there, if possible.

If soul.sty is a non-guaranteed dependency, we should document it.   
Where?
Maybe I should make the use of soul.sty dependend on the use of strike- 
through
stuff in the file....

- Carsten