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
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.