Bug#233886: tetex-base upgrade from woody pretend I have modified /etc/texmf/mktex.cnf
From: Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>
Subject: Bug#233886: tetex-base upgrade from woody pretend I have modified /etc/texmf/mktex.cnf
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 23:28:21 +0100
> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 09:27:29AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> >
> > > When doing a woody to sid upgrade from a clean woody install,
> > > dpkg tell me I have modified /etc/texmf/mktex.cnf
> > > This is simply not true and confusing.
> >
> > In a sense, it is true. It was moved from tetex-bin to
> > tetex-base at upgrading tetex 1.0 (woody) to 2.0 (testing)
> > so dpkg would behave that way.
>
> Do you really need to do that change ?
In upstream sources of tetex-base/bin there were two
mktex.cnf and so I asked Thomas Esser (2003/2/27) which
one was a recommended file and got an answer (2003/2/28)
that one in tetex-base was for the default configuration
of teTeX.
FYI, (due to Thomas) one in tetex-bin was by Olaf Weber
and everything is commented-out in it. I suspect, in older
packages, maintainer would have patched it so there is no
inconsistency between mktex.cnf of woody and one in the
latest packages.
> > These were renamed *.cnf at some time after woody and so
> > if there was old 05TeXMF then we renamed it as 05TeXMF.cnf
> > (because we should preserve your modifications) but again
> > dpkg would behave in the same way.
>
> Again, do you really need to do that change ?
Yes, to make update-texmf more robust, reliable and/or
safer than old one. Once we eliminated unnecessary
file names like
egrep -v "(.dpkg-[a-z]*|~|.bak)$"
but, in this way, we might add patterns endlessly (in
fact, we got a bug to do so. cf. #148987) so we modified
it so that it handles only *.cnf files.
> > > /etc/texmf/dvips/config.ams
> > > /etc/texmf/dvips/config.cm
> > > /etc/texmf/dvips/config.amz
> > > /etc/texmf/dvips/config.cmz
> > > /etc/texmf/dvips/bsr-interpolated.map
> > > /etc/texmf/dvips/bsr.map
> >
> > These were moved from tetex-base to tetex-extra because
> > they were files for fonts in tetex-extra and dpkg would
> > behave in the same way.
I guess you would think this is reasonable.
> One of the stated goal of Debian is to provide smooth upgrade path.
> Prompting users about changes they know nothing about is not a good
> thing. This is the kind of problem we should think about before making
> changes to conffiles.
Right. I believe we did it in a right way.
> Note that I am only interested in the final woody to sarge update, and
> don't really care for what happen to people having done a woody
> to testing upgrade before the release of sarge.
>
> Also consider that the dpkg default is 'N', which mean a lot of users
> will keep the woody version of the conffile, which is most probably not
> what you want.
I think there would be no problem to answer 'N' in these
cases.
Thanks for your interest in tetex packages.
Regards, 2004-2-23(Mon)
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Reply to: