Re: update-updmap vs. updmap --enable
Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
Hi,
> 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:
The updmap.d scheme allows package maintainers and administrators to
control the order of things in updmap.cfg, but I don't know if this is
really useful. Other than that, if you call "updmap --disable foo.map",
you will end up with "#! Map foo.map" in updmap.cfg, whereas no cruft
will be left if you remove map files with the updmap.d scheme.
> but I think "updmap --(en|dis)able" fulfils that requirement.
> Just for the archive: if we change that -- the affected packages
> would be: arabtex hlatex thailatex.
How did you come up with this list?
--
Florent
Reply to: