[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: texmf.cnf again

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 01:21:05AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:

 >  	My texmf.conf, however, is shared, and this problem is
 >  something that does nag at me. I fail to see why we need to break
 >  compatibility with every other tetex installation in the world.

 Manoj, it seems you are being purposely obtuse.  Which part of
 "default" don't you understand?  You can change it.  If you read my
 original email you'll see I wasn't asking why the question exists at
 all, but why it defaults to yes and why it has such a high priority.

 As it is right now you are presented this question not once but _three_
 times.  In the way the text is worded it makes it sound as if it was of
 uttermost importance to answer "yes" yet it hints that some users might
 want to answer "no".  The default answer?  "No".  That makes no sense

 We have evolved from a system where the installation process stopped
 every five minutes to ask all sorts of stuff in a seemingly random
 fashion to a system where the installation system bombards the user
 with several dozen incoherent questions in rapid succession.  Uhm, did
 I call this "evolution"?  Sorry, my bad.

 Back to this particular topic.  How does properly and accurately
 documenting the conditions under which /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf is
 automatically generated *not* address your requirements?  Why must the
 default behaviour be the one that's correct for your installations?

 > >  From a pragmatic point of view, it makes sense for the default to
 > >  be to overwrite the file.  For the vast majority of users this is
 > >  just another one of those "yeah, whatever" questions.
 > 	For the vast majority of users, Windows is the right answer.

 Non sequitur.

 We are talking about Debian and therefore about users of a Debian
 system.  In this context, I don't give a iota about people using
 Windows systems or their reasons for doing so.


Reply to: