Re: texmf.cnf again
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003 08:24:38 +0200, Marcelo E Magallon <email@example.com> said:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2003 at 01:01:18AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> It is an either or situation -- give us your configuration files,
>> or forever lose out on any configuration change the maintainers do,
>> even though that shall break your packages.
> Sure, I wasn't claiming it's perfect. It's just better than
> before, this time you have the chance that you don't want your
> local modifications overwritten at seemingly random times.
> My point is that given the way the question is written, its
> priority and default answer seem to counter its purpose.
Given that were the defaults set differently this would be a
serious bug, perhaps that says something about the purpose.
"What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being
very wasteful. How true that is." Vice President Dan Quayle
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.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