Re: 2.99.8: updmap output directories
Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de> schrieb:
>> But this also means that for our system-wide configuration which is
>> connected to package management, we cannot rely on texconfig and
>> TEXMFCONFIG and must work as if they didn't exist.
>
> I don't understand this... texconfig can well be used to system-wide
> configuration. Just set TEXMFCONFIG and TEXMFVAR to the right tree.
What will happen if, site-wide, TEXFMCONFIG is something else than
TEXMFMAIN, the site-wide admin uses it for configuration, and a user
sets TEXMFCONFIG to $HOME/bla and tries to change things? I guess he
will loose the site-wide customization completely, and texconfig will
start off with the default files in TEXMFMAIN, right?
If I am right, I think a dual use of texconfig for site-wide and
user-specific customization should be avoided unless TEXMFCONFIG is the
same as TEXMFMAIN. Or at least the local admin should be careful to
_not_ use it for stuff that might break things if missing. Currently it
seems there is nothing that could easily cause breakage, though.
My personal conclusion is that under the requirement of Debian policy
(no configuration files in /usr/share), our current symlink approach is
the best way to do it. Not quite astonishing, since this is how many
packages do it if upstream doesn't use /etc.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: