Re: suggestion to change default org-latex-pdf-process to latexmk

[Vladimir Lomov <lomov.vl@yandex.ru>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1728 bytes --]

Hello,
** Tim Cross <theophilusx@gmail.com> [2021-06-02 12:56:59 +1000]:

> "Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com> writes:

>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 9:09 PM Scott Randby <srandby@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As a constant user of Org's LaTeX export capability, this change would break
>>> my ability to export to PDF, and it would be difficult for me to fix. I don't
>>> support this change.
>>
>> Can you explain this, Scott? Why would anything "break'?
>>
>> And for those that think this is a bad idea, suggested alternatives?
>>
>> With the status quo; new org-cite users will run latex/pdf output
>> process and will be surprised by the results, as there will be no
>> citations or bibliography.
>>
>> I suppose the easy solution is a prominent note in the documentation.
>>

> I'm guessing Scott is referring to the latexmk not being part of a
> 'standard' texlive installation and if not installed, pdf generation
> would fail.

If you are talking about Linux then there is TeX Live distribution (TUG TeX
Live) and texlive packages. latexmk availability depends on how you install
TUG TeX Live (full scheme or not, I didn't investigate this I prefer to use
full always) but if you are referring to texlive packages (Linux distribution
packages) then the latexmk could be available as distribution package.

It could be a problem either on Windows (suppose one could use MikTeX but
Emacs on Windows is a bit a pain, IMHO) or on Mac but if one uses TUG TeX Live
I'm sure there would be latexmk.

Of course, it would be best if there will be a note in documentation.

[...]

---
WBR, Vladimir Lomov

-- 
I can't decide whether to commit suicide or go bowling.
		-- Florence Henderson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]