Re: 2.99.8: updmap output directories
> 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
Right, if the admin decides to choose a separate directory and if he
does not set up a "backup" variable mentioned in TEXMF, then the user
will loose the configuration that the admin has made if he decides to
choose his own TEXMFCONFIG.
> 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
The more general concept is a backup "path" to the texmf tree where
TEXMFCONFIG points 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.
Yes, I tend to agree.
But, I think that today's discussion was good for something (even though
the outcome might be what you'd have done anyway)... :-)
Thomas
Reply to: