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.
manoj
--
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: