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

Re: texmf.cnf again



Hi,

On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 08:55:07AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:

> which leaves two solutions
> * Try to minimize breakage by choosing a default. Results may vary
>   depending on whether you think breaking one unix guru's sytem is
>   more important than ten newbies. ;-)
> * Don't ask the question. Proposed solutions are ucf and
>   <[🔎] E19OvQK-0004MW-Sg@mid.downhill.at.eu.org>. Another possibility might
>   be to simply move /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf to /var if it is not supposed
>   to be edited.

I've suggested it before: why not maintain the auto-generated texmf.cnf
in /var, and offer the administrator to symlink /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf to
it?

This way, the administrator can choose between the dpkg-managed and a
manually managed version at any time by simply changing the destination
of the /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf symlink to the automatically managed
/var/texmf/texmf.cnf or to a hand edited version somewhere else.

He can also ignore the mechanism altogether by having his hand managed
file as the /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf; dpkg only touches the version in /var
so behaviour will be as expected.

No merging, no parsing, no complexity, no loss of information, and you
can choose between power and user friendliness on a per machine basis.

Cheers,


Emile.

-- 
E-Advies - Emile van Bergen           emile@e-advies.nl      
tel. +31 (0)70 3906153           http://www.e-advies.nl    

Attachment: pgpu58YnGGKMq.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: