Re: texmf.cnf again
On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 23:16:50 +0200, Marcelo E Magallon <mmagallo@debian.org> said:
> On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 02:01:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> This actually is something I would consider an important bug
>> -- when the maintainer holds the users up to hostage as to either
>> accept the maintainers control over the configuration file (in
>> violation of Debian policy), or be relegated to a ghetto where no
>> upstream change is ever shown to the user.
> After reading between the lines... how exactly do you picture these
> packages (tetex & Co.) achieving this:
> - Use ucf to avoid pushing users to the ghetto
> - Use only /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf (instead of /etc/texmf/texmf.d/...)
> - Conform to policy
The last is not, in my opinion, an option. TeTeX must conform
to policy. Whether the maintainers use option 1 or 2 is up to them,
I am not here to micromanage the package.
manoj
--
<Culus> aIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 <Culus> MY LIGHT JUST DIED
<Culus> I AM SO SAD <Culus> I'm blind! I'm blind! <dark> Light? <dark>
Turn all your xterms to black-on-white :) Plenty of light that
way. Seen on #Debian
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: