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

[Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>]

Now my understanding is;

    the new mechanism might be okay if it first checks whether 
    texmf.cnf is an admin's file or a file generated by 
    update-texmf before generating texmf.cnf and overwrites it 
    only in the case it was a file generated by the script
    (for example, with the way of update-modules).

Is this right?

Well, I had an impression from the prases like;

From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500

> 	I am sorry, I do think that not preserving user changes is not
>  an advancement.

or

From: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:52:43 -0500

> 	Excellent? Dumping user changes is excellent? I think I would
>  prefer a less gee-which flashy scheme that actually followed polciy.

that you denied the new mechanism in the whole so I tried
to explain why it was necessary for entire TeX system.

If you said something like;

   it might be okay ONLY IF it checks first if texmf.cnf was
   generated one or not before overwriting it,
   (I'm not completely sure that this is really your intention, 
   though)

then I could get your point soon...

# Communication with English is indeed difficult for me.
# I hope my understanding is correct now.

Thanks,			   2003-4-24(Thu)

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