Re: Too many conflicts? (tetex vs. texlive)

[Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>]

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:

> This sounds quite reasonable. Only depending on tex-common, and calling
> mktexlsr and updmap-sys only if tehy are present.

I'm *almost* convinced. :-)   But...
I'd like to hear Frank's opinion about that.

> If later on a tex system (whichever) is installed, there are calls of
> update-updmap and updmap-sys anyway.

Before tetex-bin is configured, texmf.cnf might be broken or incomplete.
updmap-sys creates files in $VARTEXMF/fonts/map/pdftex/ for instance,
and that might change when a package such as tetex-bin is configured. If
the programs are run before, the map files might be created at a wrong
location. Of course, there are rather strong arguments telling this is
not a severe problem:
  - the "wrong location" is probably the previous one, therefore the
    created files will simply overwrite the previous ones... unless the
    files in the old location were already deleted by tetex-bin's
    preinst... Also, maybe the updmap program in the tetex-bin version
    installed creates more map files than the previous one. In this
    case, we are again creating stuff in the wrong place.
  - as you say, tetex-bin (or its texlive equivalent) will run the
    programs itself, therefore the correct files will be created in the
    end.
  - things such as $VARTEXMF don't change very often.

But there _are_ corner cases, and I cannot assume without a word from
the teTeX maintainers that running these scripts before tetex-bin is
configured is supposed to work in all cases.

> One more thing concerning tetex2 TDS layout: As soon as you have .enc
> files there will be problems, as the curently shipping tex-common does
> not search the old location of enc files!

Hmmm, it was the rather other way round: would teTeX 2 work with lmodern
shipped following the TDS 1.1 (as in teTeX 3) layout? But this is an
academic question, since tex-common conflicts with teTeX 2. Otherwise,
only depending on tex-common would have allowed the latest lmodern
packages to work with teTeX 2 (which is of limited interest since tetex
3 is coming soon in unstable; however, if tex-common were easy to
backport to sarge...).

-- 
Florent