Re: texmf.cnf again
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 20:13:04 +0200, Marcelo E Magallon <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> This is in strict opposition to Debian practice where such
> upstream changes are offered to the user, and the user may use diff
> to examine the changges, and either accept or reject them, perhaps to
> later manually patch bits in.
> This degradation of the quality of implementation just to
> never ask the user questions at install time makes the current TeTeX
> packages, in my opinion, suck.
With a hand-hacked texmf.cnf, I found that the diff was always rather
large, and a complete pain to merge, because it required a lot of
effort due to the large number of conflicts.
Personally, I find update-texmf a bonus, since I have my local changes
in just one file, which I can maintain mostly independently from the
rest of the TeX configuration.
While I take your point about being incompatible with other systems, I
would rather have this system than be without it. If you must share
your configuration, you could split the shared stuff into a separate
file to be included by each installation.
Printing on GNU/Linux? http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/
GPG Public Key: 0x25BFB848 available on public keyservers