Bug: "DEFINITION NOT FOUND" for footnote in Org manual

Bug: "DEFINITION NOT FOUND" for footnote in Org manual

[Tim Landscheidt]

At https://orgmode.org/manual/Export-Settings.html#DOCF124
and (renumbered to "fn:123") in doc/org-manual.org, a foot-
note is defined as "DEFINITION NOT FOUND":

| [tim@vagabond ~/src/org-mode]$ git grep -2 'DEFINITION NOT FOUND' -- doc/org-manual.org
| doc/org-manual.org-this timestamp are exported.
| doc/org-manual.org-
| doc/org-manual.org:[fn:123] DEFINITION NOT FOUND.
| doc/org-manual.org-
| doc/org-manual.org-[fn:124] At the moment, some export back-ends do not obey this
| [tim@vagabond ~/src/org-mode]$

The original footnote seems to have been added with commit
e30aed8f0c62e74633f7a0398340f9bd7bdfa3cc (but personally I
don't find that text very helpful).

Re: Bug: "DEFINITION NOT FOUND" for footnote in Org manual

[Timothy]

Hi Tim,

> At https://orgmode.org/manual/Export-Settings.html#DOCF124
> and (renumbered to "fn:123") in doc/org-manual.org, a foot-
> note is defined as "DEFINITION NOT FOUND":

Well that certainly looks dodgy!

> The original footnote seems to have been added with commit
> e30aed8f0c62e74633f7a0398340f9bd7bdfa3cc (but personally I
> don't find that text very helpful).

Do you think it would be more appropriate to update or remove the
footnote?

--
Timothy

Re: Bug: "DEFINITION NOT FOUND" for footnote in Org manual

[Maxim Nikulin]

On 21/07/2021 17:36, Timothy wrote:
> 
>> At https://orgmode.org/manual/Export-Settings.html#DOCF124
>> and (renumbered to "fn:123") in doc/org-manual.org, a foot-
>> note is defined as "DEFINITION NOT FOUND":
> 
> Well that certainly looks dodgy!
> 
>> The original footnote seems to have been added with commit
>> e30aed8f0c62e74633f7a0398340f9bd7bdfa3cc (but personally I
>> don't find that text very helpful).

It seems, the footnote was unintentionally lost in the merge commit with 
a lot of conflicts due to renumbering in both branches:

https://code.orgmode.org/bzg/org-mode/commit/9410fbe0606a53b0582cc175b2cc525d556b23fe#diff-6498bd2213e2e527d904942bb214768a1913776L21749

Re: Bug: "DEFINITION NOT FOUND" for footnote in Org manual

[Timothy]

Maxim Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes:

> It seems, the footnote was unintentionally lost in the merge commit with a lot
> of conflicts due to renumbering in both branches:
>
> https://code.orgmode.org/bzg/org-mode/commit/9410fbe0606a53b0582cc175b2cc525d556b23fe#diff-6498bd2213e2e527d904942bb214768a1913776L21749

Many thanks for tracking that down! I'm inclined to just add back the
text lost in that merge unless you'd recommend anything else.

--
Timothy

Re: Bug: "DEFINITION NOT FOUND" for footnote in Org manual

[Maxim Nikulin]

On 21/07/2021 22:26, Timothy wrote:
> Maxim Nikulin writes:
> 
>> It seems, the footnote was unintentionally lost in the merge commit with a lot
>> of conflicts due to renumbering in both branches:
>>
>> https://code.orgmode.org/bzg/org-mode/commit/9410fbe0606a53b0582cc175b2cc525d556b23fe#diff-6498bd2213e2e527d904942bb214768a1913776L21749
> 
> Many thanks for tracking that down! I'm inclined to just add back the
> text lost in that merge unless you'd recommend anything else.

I think, it is better to restore the footnote text than to leave it in 
its current state "DEFINITION NOT FOUND".

Re: Bug: "DEFINITION NOT FOUND" for footnote in Org manual

[Bastien]

Hi,

Maxim Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes:

> I think, it is better to restore the footnote text than to leave it in
> its current state "DEFINITION NOT FOUND".

Fixed now, thanks!

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Bug: "DEFINITION NOT FOUND" for footnote in Org manual

[Tim Landscheidt]

Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com> wrote:

> […]

>> The original footnote seems to have been added with commit
>> e30aed8f0c62e74633f7a0398340f9bd7bdfa3cc (but personally I
>> don't find that text very helpful).

> Do you think it would be more appropriate to update or remove the
> footnote?

AFAIUI, if LANGUAGE is set, for LaTeX export,
org-latex-package-alist *must* also be set/amended, so the
documentation of this relationship cannot be removed.

But some other minor nitpicks with that setting (from a non-
native speaker):

| - =LANGUAGE= ::

|   #+cindex: @samp{LANGUAGE}, keyword
|   #+vindex: org-export-default-language
|   Language to use for translating certain strings
|   (~org-export-default-language~).  With =#+LANGUAGE: fr=, for
|   example, Org translates =Table of contents= to the French =Table des
|   matières=[fn:122].

1. "Certain strings" is true, but which ones are they?
   Without the second sentence, I couldn't imagine what
   strings the documentation is talking about.  And does
   org-mode change user-supplied occurences of "Table of
   contents" to "Table des matières" as well?

2. Neither org-mode nor anything else is /translating/
   (how?) those strings.  Instead, one chooses the language
   for the name of the "Table of contents" section and
   others.

| - =LANGUAGE= ::
|   #+cindex: @samp{LANGUAGE}, keyword
|   #+vindex: org-latex-package-alist
|   In order to be effective, the =babel= or =polyglossia=
|   packages---according to the LaTeX compiler used---must be loaded
|   with the appropriate language as argument.  This can be accomplished
|   by modifying the =org-latex-package-alist= variable, e.g., with the
|   following snippet:
|
|   #+begin_src emacs-lisp
|   (add-to-list org-latex-package-alist
|                '("AUTO" "babel" t ("pdflatex")))
|   (add-to-list org-latex-package-alist
|                '("AUTO" "polyglossia" t ("xelatex" "lualatex")))
|   #+end_src

3. General question: Why can't the requirement be automatic?
   E. g., if LANGUAGE != "en", use babel or polyglossia?

4. In org-latex-packages-alist (or
   org-latex-default-packages-alist), "AUTO" is not docu-
   mented, neither is OPTIONS in general.

5. My (rudimentary) understanding of LaTeX and babel &
   Co. is that one needs to use it with something like
   "\usepackage[english,german]{babel}".  The first sentence
   ("be loaded with the appropriate language as argument")
   seems to confirm that.  The second sentence says that
   "this" can be accomplished by the following snippet.
   However, there does not seem to be any argument that con-
   veys a language.  Does that happen automatically?  I. e.,
   does the snippet actually accomplish what it claims to?
   (I haven't tested this.)

Tim