Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:40:16 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <email@example.com> said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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
> Sorry to say but I should say that you don't have enough knowledge
> about TeX system.
Ah, pissing contest. OK, I have been building TeX since 1989,
when we used to buy tapes and compile TeX on a dozen Unix systems at
the university. This was before TeTeX, before Debian, and even Before
Linux. So, I have 14 years of experience with TeX -- how much more do
I need to have to reach the exalted levels of experience you have
with the 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.
Fine. And the admin made the decision. You never, ever,
pretend you know better than the local admin and blow away
changes. If the system breaks, the admin did so with their decisions,
and they can always change local configuration to make TeX work
> 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.
Rubbish. You could have let the old system remain, and posted
a high priority note saying that replace the config files with
*.dpkg-new or else TeX shall break. Let the human make the
decision. With a manual merge, perhaps the admin would carry changes
> 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.
Excellent? Dumping user changes is excellent? I think I would
prefer a less gee-which flashy scheme that actually followed polciy.
> I'm afraid you can't understand the meaning which these examples
> showed but these are enough for people who knows TeX well.
Bullshit. It is easy to call the other person in a discussion
> Sorry again but you have not enough knowledge to say so.
So, how long have you been using TeX? My first TeX document is
time stamped Jun 13th, 1988.
Character is what you are in the dark! Lord John Whorfin
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C