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

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

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:03:00 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
<kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp> said:  

> Okay, I guessed that the old /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf was a conffile but
> the current one is a configuration file so it's okay only reserving
> the old file as texmf.cnf.dpkg-old and explain how to migrate to the
> new scheme in README.Debian but it seemed there are many members who
> disagree.

> So I decided to stop generating /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf but generate
> directly /var/lib/texmf/web2c/texmf.cnf which is not a conffile nor
> a configuration file so no policy violation occured any more.  The
> current texmf.cnf is not human editable but only generated file so
> it would be appropriate to put it under /var

	But this still makes Debian totally incompatible with all the
 other machines in the lab. Even worse, now there is even less
 information about what went wrong. 

	For example, I set up a Debian machine in a lab with other,
 non debian machines. I note that all the machines have default
 texmf.cnf behaviour. No problem, I create a custom texmf.cnf, and
 distribute it to all machines. 

	Every other machine works. But the Debian box, despite having
 my nice, fancy, /etc/texmf.cnf, does not pay any attention to it.

	Hmm. Red Hat Works. Suse Works. Solaris Works. Debian fails.
 Why does Debian have to be incompatible? I say this is a bug.


Man weeps to think that he will die so soon; woman, that she was born
so long ago.  -- H. L. Mencken
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <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

Reply to: