Re: Braindump: Can we get rid of the font-cache-group question?
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 01:48 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
>
> So how is the status of this?
I had hoped that Karl and/or Thomas would by now have answered my
question whether they meant only the --expand-path -> --var-value change
or also the other changes. Or do you think it was obvious that they were
talking about the whole patch?
> I have checked in Ralfs diff into the depot. How do we continue with
> this? DO we actually execute it? If yes, tetex (and texlive) need and
> update *before* we push this into tex-common, or? Because if we have a
> non-functional mktexnam in this respect, it is even worse.
I would be in favour of using the texmfvar feature, since we could get
rid of the debconf question that way (even though a lot of work went
into implementing it ... :-(. An update of mktexnam in tetex and texlive
would then be the next step. As long as this feature is not used, the
change to mktexnam has no consequences. After that we can tackle
tex-common:
. add appropriate mktex.cnf in /u/s/texmf/web2c (or /e/texmf/web2c?)
. change VARTEXFONTS to /tmp/texfonts (also in the policy)
. write documentation for NEWS.Debian and README.Debian
. update (pre|post)inst script
. Do we need transition code? Remove saved answers or things like this?
What to do if the local admin used a mktex.cnf in /e/texmf/web2c to
configure, eg, the MF mode? This would shadow the new mktex.cnf in
/u/s/texmf/web2c.
. test updates and font creation under different circumstances
After an upload of tex-common, mktex.cnf could be removed from tetex and
texlive.
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: