### Documentation of packages

These FAQs regularly suggest packages that will "solve" particular problems. Mostly, however, the answer doesn't provide a detailed recipe for the job - how is the poor user to find out what (exactly) to do?

If you're lucky, the package you need is already in your installation. If you're particularly lucky, you're using a distribution that gives access to package documentation and the documentation is available in a form that can easily be shown. For example, on a teTeX-based system, the texdoc command is usually useful, as in:

>     texdoc footmisc

which opens an xdvi window showing documentation of the footmisc package. According to the type of file texdoc finds, it will launch xdvi, a ghostscript-based PostScript viewer or a PDF reader. If it can't find any documentation, it may launch a Web browser to look at its copy of the CTAN catalogue. The catalogue has an entry for package documentation, and since CTAN now encourages authors to submit documentation of their packages, that entry may provide a useful lead.

If your luck (as defined above) doesn't hold out, you've got to find documentation by other means. This is where you need to exercise your intelligence: you have to find the documentation for yourself. What follows offers a range of possible techniques.

The commonest form of documentation of LaTeX add-ons is within the `.dtx` file in which the code is distributed (see documented LaTeX sources). Such files are supposedly processable by LaTeX itself, but there are occasional hiccups on the way to readable documentation. Common problems are that the package itself is needed to process its own documentation (so must be unpacked before processing), and that the `.dtx` file will not in fact process with LaTeX. In the latter case, the `.ins` file will usually produce a `.drv` (or similarly-named) file, which you process with LaTeX instead. (Sometimes the package author even thinks to mention this wrinkle in a package `README` file.)

Another common form is the separate documentation file; particularly if a package is "conceptually large" (and therefore needs a lot of documentation), the documentation would prove a cumbersome extension to the `.dtx` file. Examples of such cases are the memoir class (whose documentation, memman, is widely praised as an introduction to typesetting concepts), the KOMA-script bundle (whose developers take the trouble to produce detailed documentation in both German and English), and the fancyhdr package (whose documentation derives from a definitive tutorial in a mathematical journal). Even if the documentation is not separately identified in a `README` file, it should not be too difficult to recognise its existence.

Documentation within the package itself is the third common form. Such documentation ordinarily appears in comments at the head of the file, though at least one eminent author regularly places it after the `\``endinput` command in the package. (This is desirable, since `\``endinput` is a 'logical' end-of-file, and (La)TeX doesn't read beyond it: thus such documentation does not 'cost' any package loading time.)

The above suggestions cover most possible ways of finding documentation. If, despite your best efforts, you can't find it in any of the above places, there's the awful possibility that the author didn't bother to document his package (on the "if it was hard to write, it should be hard to use" philosophy). Most ordinary mortals will seek support from some more experienced user at this stage; however, it is possible to proceed in the way that the original author apparently expected...by reading his code.

This question on the Web: http://www.tex.ac.uk/cgi-bin/texfaq2html?label=pkgdoc