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

Re: texmf.cnf again

On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 04:21, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:

>  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
>  whatsoever.

Well, the answer must be no.  We have been over this before.  
The discussion that started this change began here:

And here, I gave a sincere try to explain in simple terms why such
questions cannot default to yes:


As for the disparity between the default answer and the description,
well, the description should probably be changed.

>  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.

That's another problem.

>  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?

I hope the above explains that.

Reply to: