[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: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:51:23 -0500

> 	Not quite. a) even if the file was generated by update-texmf,
>  and the user modified it later, the user changes *must* be
>  preserved.

Really?  As I explained already, I will put generated
texmf.cnf under /var, because it is not a file for a 
user to modify it.  I believe there are many such files
under /var which don't preseve direct user modifications.

And, of course, user's modifications of files in /etc/texmf/texmf.d
are preserved in the generated texmf.cnf.  It not only preserves
user's modification but also keeps unmodified parts completely 
up-to-date at any time and contains only necessary and sufficient
stuffs in it at any time.  This was achieved through co-operation 
with many maintainers of TeX related packages.

Only when a user selects not to use update-texmf, texmf.cnf will
be put under /etc and the user should be responsible for it. 

>  preserved. Secondly, You are missing the fact that you ought to ask
>  if the user wants your new file or not. We can't just leave the user
>  out in the cold if they have local modifications to the file.

Of course we ask, if not, we may leave many users in a state 
where they fail to install important TeX components afterwards.

> 	So no, I don't think the behaviour described above is
>  optimal. 

I don't say it is optimal but, at least, it doesn't
overwrite texmf.cnf contrary to admin's wishes any more.

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.

Reply to: