Re: texmf.cnf again
On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 04:21, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> As it is right now you are presented this question not once but _three_
> times. In the way the text is worded it makes it sound as if it was of
> uttermost importance to answer "yes" yet it hints that some users might
> want to answer "no". The default answer? "No". That makes no sense
> whatsoever.
Well, the answer must be no. We have been over this before.
The discussion that started this change began here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01145.html
And here, I gave a sincere try to explain in simple terms why such
questions cannot default to yes:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01227.html
As for the disparity between the default answer and the description,
well, the description should probably be changed.
> We have evolved from a system where the installation process stopped
> every five minutes to ask all sorts of stuff in a seemingly random
> fashion to a system where the installation system bombards the user
> with several dozen incoherent questions in rapid succession. Uhm, did
> I call this "evolution"? Sorry, my bad.
That's another problem.
> Back to this particular topic. How does properly and accurately
> documenting the conditions under which /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf is
> automatically generated *not* address your requirements? Why must the
> default behaviour be the one that's correct for your installations?
I hope the above explains that.
Reply to: