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

Re: Configuration file shadowed?

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:12:46 +0200, Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> said: 

> 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.

        This is fairly esoteric (but I do agree with you).

> However, there are many others that are rather intended for a
> per-document customization, or a per-project customization. Note
> that web2c in most cases reads also files in the current directory,
> so if you have all your scientific reports in ~/univ/reports/, it
> might make sense to put a graphics.cfg in the same directory if you
> want to keep your graphics inclusion consistent for all these
> reports.

> ,----
>> 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.
> `----

        I agree that something that modifies the behaviour of the
 executable, and applies to all the documents being processed, is a
 conf(iguration) file.

        The later is not so clear to me -- the distinction is blurred
 a bit, but I tend to agree than not.  How does one feel about a LaTeX
 package that sets up a default output style, and the user prefers a
 different one? If there is a way to tailor the typeset output by
 editing the input document itself (for instance, including or not
 including TeX packages, or by supplying options to the packages, or
 setting variables, or the like), then one need not have the package
 in question in /etc.

        Arguably, if the only way to change a default output style is
 to hack the source package, one can say that the package is very
 rigid; and the solution may be to fix the package by making it more
 flexible, rather than moving it into /etc.  Does that make sense?

        So yes, I think I agree in principle, and I would defer to you
 in the particulars (my TeX has gotten rather rusty in the last 15
 years or so)

Anything cut to length will be too short.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: