manfred at dante.de
Fri Jan 3 11:34:23 CET 2020
On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 22:22:34 +0100
Reinhard Kotucha <reinhard.kotucha at web.de> wrote:
> On 2020-01-02 at 19:27:32 +0000, David Carlisle wrote:
> > could the default texdoc configuration for bidi prefer
> > bidi-doc.pdf to bidi.pdf, the latter is the source listing,
> > bidi-doc is the user manual.
> > texdoc -l bidi
> > 1 /usr/local/texlive/2019/texmf-dist/doc/xelatex/bidi/bidi.pdf
> > = Package source documentation
> > 2 /usr/local/texlive/2019/texmf-dist/doc/xelatex/bidi/bidi-doc.pdf
> > = Package user documentation
> Hi David,
> I had a similar problem with VnTeX in the past. It turned out that in
> the TeX Catalogue the wrong file got the attribute "package
> It seems that "package documentation" was replaced by "Package source
> documentation" and "Package user documentation". Maybe texdoc has to
> be adapted accordingly.
> Manfred, is my assuption correct?
It could be that at some time in the past "package documentation" was
replaced for bidi. But even in February 2018 there were "Package source
documentation" and "Package user documentation" in the catalog entry of
I am not familiar how texdoc operates. But I assume that the .tlpobj
files are the sources used by texdoc to determine what to display.
Perhaps indirectly, if those .tlpobj files are inserted into a database.
So, looking into the .tlpobj files in the current texlive installation
on my system I find occurrences like follows:
- "Package documentation": 85449 occurrences
- "Package source documentation": 66 occurrences
- "Package user documentation": 66 occurrences
- 200 occurrences of different varieties like
- "Package short documentation"
- "Package and font documentation"
More information about the tex-live