Re: Bug#379089: Configuration file shadowed?
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 18:12 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> foo.tex (or foo.sty in most cases) is indeed a library equivalent, but
> we are rather discussing whether an additional foo.cfg or foo.whatever
> that is loaded by foo.sty is a configuration file or not.
>
> I've come across at least one example where it is:
>
> \ProvidesFile{listings.cfg}[2004/09/05 1.3 listings configuration]
> \def\lstlanguagefiles
> {lstlang0.sty,lstlang1.sty,lstlang2.sty,lstlang3.sty}
>
> If you have created a local lstlang4.sty, you have to enter it here.
> Such a file should be treated as a conf(iguration) file, I think.
I am not sure if this is a particular good example, since listings also
reads certain local configuration files. See page 44 of the listings
documentation. However, I think the general distinction between files
used for site-wide configuration and those used for specific documents/
projects is appropriate in this context. Even though I don't know off
hand any file that would fall in the first category.
> ,----
> | Files that are used to modify the behavior of executables must be
> | treated as any other configuration file in a Debian package. However,
> | files that are used to control the typeset output - the appearance of
> | documents - need not be treated as configuration files. It is up to
> | the maintainer of the package to decide which files make sense to be
> | used for site-wide (as opposed to per-project or per-document)
> | customization.
> |
> | A typical case for a site-wide configuration file is a file
> | that must be changed if a style file should use additional
> | modules (installed, for example, into TEXMFLOCAL). Options
> | that only control document output are rather used for a
> | particular document or documentation project and should
> | usually not be installed as a configuration file.
> `----
Sounds good.
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: