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

Re: texmf.cnf again

On Mon, 2003-06-09 at 14:13, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:

>  This guy is going to be editing a file which starts like this:
> %%% This file is automatically generated by update-texmf
> [...]

>  Now
>  you are going to tell me the user might scroll past the comment without
>  ever reading it.

Not always, but the fact remains that all of these comments have a
different form (who knows if it's going to be like ## BEGIN DEBCONF
REGION or maybe # Do not edit or # Automatically generated...), there's
no global way to say "don't touch my files in /etc", and yes, sometimes
a system administrator might miss the comment when they're in a hurry.  

Simply put, I do not consider these comments a license to violate
policy.  Debian policy has made Debian into a generally very well
integrated and consistent whole, and we're throwing that out the window
with these "automatically generated" conffiles.

If we're going to go this route, the method, comments, etc. need to be
standardized, as I proposed later in that thread with /etc/conffiles and
a standardized Debconf prompt.

>  I am in fact more eager to admit that _this_ case could be a problem,
>  except for three empirical facts: 1. this kind of newbie is more
>  careful and is more likely to read the comment at the top of the file;

Probably true, but all the above arguments still apply.

>  2. newbies tend to emphasize the distro thing much more than
>  experienced users (that is, they go looking from help from people using
>  the same distribution); 3. the reason for /etc/texmf/texmf.d is making
>  package upgrades which work correctly after the fact _easier_, which
>  incidentally is not orthogonal to your "Debian Desktop" thing.

I don't deny the benefits.  I do think that in the current
implementation, the drawbacks outweigh those benefits.  That's not to
say it couldn't be done.  But if it is done, we should do it *right*. 
We're Debian.  That's what we do.

Reply to: