Re: Should we move texmf.cnf back to /etc?
From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Should we move texmf.cnf back to /etc?
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:31:30 +0100
> > I didn't investigated your changes yet but if files
> > under texmf.d/ were handled with ucf then I saw some
> > duplication to handle texmf.cnf which was simply generated
> > from files under texmf.d/
>
> Well, I think it's not really duplication. The part with files under
> /texmf.d is mainly to address the issue of unnecessary question when
> upgrading from woody, because we have renamed the file in preinst.
>
> The other question is about user changes in texmf.cnf, and the issues
> raised in 196582 are serious, I'd say.
Well, I'm afraid that the current tetex packages might
be under my preference too much but, fortunately indeed,
we recently co-maintain tetex effectively with good members
like you and Hilmar so I believe tetex packages will be
improved very much in sarge.
That said,
> Indeed the default answer is no. However, usually a three-way-merge will
> work - and there's always the option to view the diff.
I doubt that such diff is really helpful for a user.
There might be users who install, for example, ptex
package but don't understand its seetings at all.
> If they edit /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf, but the one in /var/lib/texmf is
> used, nothing happens at all (and we're getting a bug report, or some
> TeX package is loosing a user). If they edit `kpsewhich texmf.cnf`, they
> are not even asked, but their customization is silently overwritten.
Well, the latest tetex has already renamed /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf
as /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf.dpkg-old if the one in /var/lib/texmf
was used.
> > Right, but I suspect dpkg also has enough information
> > of conffiles (md5sum?) so this feature could be a bug
> > of dpkg.
>
> No, if you upgrade from woody, dpkg knows nothing about 05TeXMF.cnf,
> only about 05TeXMF.
Yes of course. But dpkg know about 05TeXMF so if dpkg
supports some mapping(?) feature and could map the
info/data of 05TeXMF to 05TeXMF.cnf then dpkg might
behave more smart manner, IMHO. (yes, this is yet a
kind of fairy tale at present.)
Anyway I might be reluctant to use the ucf for texmf.cnf
but not object to it.
I guess Hilmar's comment if any might help Frank ;-)
Regards, 2004.3.25(Thu)
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Reply to: