[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)

From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:21:27 -0500

>  > This doesn't work for texmf.cnf which also I told you once before.
> 	And why does it not?
>  > If the default is to keep your current version then many TeX
>  > related packages should fail to install.
> 	So? The user made the choice As long as you inform the suer of
>  the consequences of their action in the preinst, it is their machine,
>  they may choose to have tetex break until they decide to deal with
>  the issue, or they may decide to go with the new configuration
>  file. Either way, the decision is not yours t make. it is the end
>  users. 

Sorry to say but I should say that you don't have
enough knowledge about TeX system.

I suspect that you think that user's change beaks
tetex but not so really.  And It is not simply "tetex break"
but whole TeX system doen't work without new scheme.

Without the current cheme all TeX system breaks so,
in short, the new scheme is indispensable infrastructure
for TeX system and there is no choice other than to accept
to the new scheme.

I recently read FreeBSD guy asked in tetex mailing list
how to co-exist platex+teTeX;


because FreeBSD doen't have our excent scheme.  Also I
heard that RedHat9 provides pxdvi and pdvips commands
which are definitely non standard names and this also
shows that they can't provide an appropriate texmf.cnf
although we Debian can do with the new scheme.

I'm afraid you can't understand the meaning which these 
examples showed but these are enough for people who knows
TeX well.

# In fact, many packages violated Policy with modifying
# texmf.cnf etc. which were a conffile under old tetex, 
# perhaps you didn't realize it.

>  > The current mechanism is, at least at present, only one solution
>  > which provides sufficiently flexible handling and also preserves
>  > user changes.
> 	I beg to differ.

Sorry again but you have not enough knowledge to say so.

Thanks,			 2003-4-21(Mon)

 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.

Reply to: