Bug#209395: teTeX: language.dat mislinked
From: frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster)
Subject: Bug#209395: teTeX: language.dat mislinked
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 14:21:06 +0100
> Do you remember Bug #189370? It seems to be quite clear to me that
> everybody but the tetex-maintainers regarded this as a policy violation
> (and even you did some changes to config file handling to close it). And
> I guess that means that even you had the feeling that it might be a
> violation, only there was no good alternative. Others don't care whether
> there's an alternative, and we will be getting such discussions on an
> on, if we don't improve things.
\begin{joke}
Hmm, about a policy, I've an impression that it is too
vague, too vage so it is safe to register a file as conffile
only if one is definitely sure that the file will be never
configured by admins.
\end{joke} %% sorry if this was a bad joke.
Basically, I have no intention to stick to the current
mechanism and, yes, if there is any good alternative
I'm willing to use it.
> This would be o.k. if there was no other way (because priority is that
> the package works, and installs smoothly for most users, not that it
> follows policy letter by letter). But look - there is a way. Or will be
> - I'm nearly ready.
Sounds great.
> Currently I have one problem with my script and that is that
> language.dat handling is doubled: Both tetex-base's and tetex-bin's
> postinst scripts copy /usr/share/tetex-base/language.dflt to
> /var/lib/texmf/language.dat. Does anybody know a specific reason why
> this should be done in tetex-base (e.g. because some packages depend on
> tetex-base and an existing language.dat, but not on tetex-bin)?
>
> Since we ask the debconf question in tetex-bin and have to fiddle around
> with language.dat in tetex-bin's postinst, anyway, I would prefer to
> simply remove that from tetex-base's postinst, if possible.
Well, I basically wanted only to keep an upstream state
and, in this case, that language.dat was in tetex-base
was the only reason. I think there is no problem to do it
in postinst of tetex-bin if it is necessary.
> Here are some more technical remarks:
>
> Is this just ill-minded, or could it be an improvement?
I'd like to hear a comment from other members.
Regards, 2004-2-5(Thu)
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Reply to: