Re: update-updmap vs. updmap --enable

[Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>]

On 28.05.04 Atsuhito Kohda (kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp) wrote:
> From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

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.
> 
Well, I found a disadvantage. If the package (which should register
its map-files) not depend on tetex-bin and hence /usr/bin/updmap is
not found it will just drop the cfg-file into /etc/texmf/updmap.d/ .
The registering of the map-files will then be done automatically by
tetex-bin. arabtex, hlatex and thailatex depend on tetex-bin, so no
problem. Hmm, I guess that disadvantage don't lead to any problem....
Frank could you post your attached updmap.check to
http://people.debian.org/~frank ?

> Also, not investigated but concerning update-fmtutil, should
> we provide separate files for tetex-bin and tetex-extra?
> 
Don't understand.

> 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.
> 
You mean Seth LaForge and #245599 ? Not sure. tetex-extra of woody
will not remove old format files, so fmtutil --missing of sarge won't
start recreating them (well, that's theory I didn't check). However
there is no version change between woody and sarge so the programs in
question should work with the old formats. Seth seems to have very
old formats on his HD.
As tetex-bin calls fmtutil --all all that applys only if the user
purged/removed tetex-extra, upgraded and then tried to reinstall and
only for the pre-sarge version of tetex-extra. As a last resort it
might be a good idea to remove the old formats in preinst of
tetex-extra.

H. 
-- 
"The Street finds its own uses for technology."
-- William Gibson
  http://hilmarpreusse.forum-rheinland.de/

#!/bin/bash
# (setq skeleton-pair t)

packagelist=tetex-bin.rdepends
installeddir=/var/lib/dpkg/info
hitdir=updmap-postinsts


for package in `cat $packagelist`; do
    installed=false
    dlocate -l $package | grep ^ii && installed=true
    if [ "$installed" = "true" ]; then
	for file in $installeddir/$package*; do
	    grep -q updmap $file && cp $file $hitdir/
	    done
	else
	    echo fetching sources for $package
	    apt-get source $package >/dev/null 2>&1
	    dirname=`ls -d $package-*`
	    debianfiles=`ls $dirname/debian/*`
	    for file in $debianfiles; do 
		grep -q updmap $file && { mkdir -p ${hitdir}/$dirname/debian; cp $file ${hitdir}/${file}; }
	    done
	rm -rf ${package}*
    fi
done