Re: update-updmap vs. updmap --enable
From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
Subject: update-updmap vs. updmap --enable
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 23:27:39 +0200
> Hi all,
Hi,
> That issue came to my attention lately. Actually we add external map
> files the following way:
> - drop it into /etc/texmf/dvips
> - drop the entry, which should be added to updmap.cfg, into
> /etc/texmf/updmap.d
> - call update-updmap and updmap
>
> The last two steps could be done in one:
> - call "updmap --enable Map xyz.map" (or "updmap --enable MixedMap
> xyz.map", depending on what kind of map that is).
>
> That will add an entry for that map-file into updmap.cfg and call
> updmap. The entry can be disabled using "updmap --disable xyz.map".
> It will not be deleted from updmap.cfg, but just commented.
>
> Is there any specific reason, why we do it the first way instead of
> using the mechanisms provided by updmap? The policy says:
If there is any reason, it was because I didn't know the
feature of updmap you mentioned at the time I packaged.
That is there is no reason to use update-updmap if updmap
behaves as you explained, I think.
Also, not investigated but concerning update-fmtutil, should
we provide separate files for tetex-bin and tetex-extra?
And it might be better to remove FMT files before running
fmtutil? At least 'fmtutil --missing' seems not regenerating
existing FMT files, and when omega and lambda changed their
FMT files names, old FMT files remained for a while.
These could be problems, I'm afraid.
Regards, 2004-5-28(Fri)
--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Reply to: