Re: dh_installtexfonts in tex-common, new usage
Hi,
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> I have moved the stuff to tex-common/scripts, adjusted debian/rules and
> debian/control, and reworked the way dh_installtexfonts works. Here is
Good.
> . dh_installtexfonts normally installs with priority 10, but this can
> be changed with --priority=n
OK.
> . dh_installtexfonts can take either config files and Map=foo.map and
> MixedMap=bar.map as arguments. The config file *have to have* the .cfg
> extension!
>
> Operation: There are three sources of .cfg files:
>
> 1) a debian/package.maps or debian/maps file is provided and installed
> as $priority$package.cfg
>
> 2) filename.cfg files is provided on the cmd line, the are installed as
> $priority$filename.cfg
OK.
> 3) maps can be specified on the cmd line with their type, they are
> collected into one $priority$package.cfg file
>
> All these can be mixed.
[...]
> I have decided that I do *not* merge these files but create
> 10fontpack.cfg
> 11fontpack.cfg
> 12fontpack.cfg
But your manpage says "10package1.cfg and 10package2.cfg"...
[...]
> Furthermore, I have decided that I add the magic header and a comment to
> *ALL* files generated! Developers can create their .cfg files and write
> comments into it, but the header is added anyway.
Hmmm, at first I was against the addition of the header, to give the
Debian maintainer full control about what goes in his packages. Now, I
think the best thing to do would be:
grep for the magic comment. If present, do nothing; if absent, add
it at the top of the .cfg file, along with the warning & explaining
blurb.
That way, developers still have full control, but unless they use this
possibility, the blurb can be changed centrally (typos, other
explanations, etc.) for all packages using dh_installtexfonts, which is
nice.
> Please comment on the current modus, is this ok for everyone?
To my taste, it offers too many possibilities to do the same thing. For
one, if I want to know what a package using dh_installtexfonts does,
looking at debian/rules isn't enough; I have to also check debian/maps
and all the package.maps files---this is a common complaint about
debhelper-using packages; personally, I tend to avoid these little files
when things can be expressed as clearly in debian/rules, unless they
bring a significant performance improvement (which is the case in
lmodern with dh_link IIRC); with the little files, running the debhelper
program (i.e., most times, Perl) only once is usually enough.
So, to my taste, handling only case 2 would be OK. OTOH, you can argue
that case 3 can actually reduce the number of "little files" in the
debian directory.
Case 2 could maybe handle:
dh_installtexfonts --priority=10 foo.cfg --priority=12 bar.cfg ...
These things do exist, but are admittedly a bit weird. Or, as I had
suggested:
dh_installtexfonts 10foo.cfg 12bar.cfg ...
which has the disadvantage that if people don't read the Policy, we'll
get all sorts of numbers for the prefix. Hmmm.
> Finally someone should check the pod2man man page for stupid
> explanations and errors, and if we settle for this, someone should write
> up something for the TeX Policy.
For Policy, let's wait a little bit until things settle down. For your
man page, you justified the dependency on tex-common (>= 0.7) but not on
tex-common (>= 0.9)... And I think it should be polished only when
things have really settled down too.
--
Florent
Reply to: