Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
From: Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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
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
I don't say it is optimal but, at least, it doesn't
overwrite texmf.cnf contrary to admin's wishes any more.
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <email@example.com>
Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.