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

[Greg Minshall]

Bruce,

> > I really don't understand why the changed is needed.
> 
> I've stated it twice, I believe, but it's now a longer thread, so:
> 
> Org is set to get native citation support.
> 
> Once that's merged, people who use this feature will be disappointed
> to know that when using the natbib or biblatex export processors,
> their citations and bibliographies will not render.
> 
> As in, from their perspective, it will be broken upfront.

thanks.

one important thing will be the manual section describing the new
capability -- it should highlight the desirability of using latexmk ("or
some process with similar behavior"), and describe the results one will
get without it.  presumably, people will initially need to read this
section to figure out the syntax, etc.?

i worry about breaking people's currently working setups.

it seems there are N classes of users:

1.  not using citation engine.
2.  using citation engine
2a. ... and using default latex-to-pdf processing
2b. ... having customized that processing
2bi. ... in a way that works with new citation engine
2bii. .. in a way that does *not* work with new citation engine

class 1 could likely benefit from latexmk, but it's optional.

class 2a is probably the main class that would find it really helpful to
have an automated latexmk.

from *our* (the org-mode provider) point of view, i guess the 2b
subclasses are indistinguishable.  so, if the user finds herself in
2bii, she will have to grep the manual or the web.  again, it would be
good if information in the manual stuck out.  maybe a "TROUBLESHOOTING"
sub-section for the new feature?

i wonder if we could detect 2a, and offer them the customization dialog?
(one would want the user to be able to click the "do not show me this
again" button, or equivalent.)

packaging.  :)

cheers, Greg