Re: Configuration file shadowed?
Le 21 juil. 06 à 18:23, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
While it is true any file can be changed to change behaviour
for TeX (like things can be changed in /usr/include/foo.h to change
behaviour of a -dev package), any file with a name *.cnf is meant to
be a configuration file, and must, in order to meet policy
requirements, live under /etc. This is no different from
kernel-package having it's configuration file live in
/etc/kernel-pkg.conf, even though editing _any_ file in
/usr/share/kernel-package would change the behaviour of the program.
By your argument, any interpreted language package is exempt from the
"configuration in /etc rule", since one may edit the script directly
in /usr/bin anyway. I do not think it holds.
The way I see it, the /usr/share/texmf/mktex.cnf is a "default value
file", used in the setup of the whole texmf hierarchy; the
configuration is /etc/texmf/mktex.cnf, which, per web2c magic,
overrides the default values, _if it does exist_. Good default values
can be set by copying /usr/share/texmf/mktex.cnf, and return to
default values can be done through the removal of /etc/texmf/mktex.cnf.
If anything setting default values must be moved under /etc, then
most shell scripts should be moved to /etc. What of, let's say, uw-
imapd (a well known package), that accepts a /etc/c-client.cf file
that does configuration, empty by default (and needing the sentence
"I accept the risk" as the first line to work). Should this file
exist on all debian systems for the sake of being configuration files?
I think the web2c mechanism is really good, and is the way
preferences should be set (source/distribution defaults in /usr,
system defaults in /etc, user defaults in ~/texmf or by environment