[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SVN tetex commit: r262 - tex-common/trunk/doc



Frank Küster <frank@costa.debian.org> wrote:

> Author: frank
> Date: 2005-10-18 11:36:53 +0000 (Tue, 18 Oct 2005)
> New Revision: 262
>
> Modified:
>    tex-common/trunk/doc/Debian-TeX-Policy.sgml
> Log:
> Some "editorial changes" to the Policy, see accompanying mail

Here are comments to some of the hunks:

--- tex-common/trunk/doc/Debian-TeX-Policy.sgml	2005-10-18 11:10:08 UTC (rev 261)
+++ tex-common/trunk/doc/Debian-TeX-Policy.sgml	2005-10-18 11:36:53 UTC (rev 262)

         <file>/etc/texmf</file>.  The system-wide
         <var>TEXMFSYSCONFIG</var> tree, if defined, must be the same
         as the <var>TEXMFMAIN</var> tree; a TeX-related package must
-        not change this.
+        not change this.  In the future,
+        <file>/etc/texmf</file> might become a separate, additional
+        <var>TEXMF</var> tree <var>TEXMFSYSCONFIG</var>; a TeX-related
+        package should try to not rely on either setup.
         </p>
 

We should leave us the possibility to make such a decision, and inform
the users/developers.


@@ -247,7 +246,8 @@
 	<p>An exception is the generated file
         <file>/etc/texmf/texmf.cnf</file>.  It is not intended that
         local administrators edit that file, but if they do, the
-        configuration update programs must respect these changes.</p>
+        configuration update programs must respect these changes.
+        Debian packages must not alter that file.</p>
 
I think this should be must :-)

@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@
 	<file>fmtutil.cnf</file>, this is the only
 	method of configuration.  <file>texmf.cnf</file> can be edited
 	manually by local system administrators, and changes will be
-	handled by ucf.  Package installation scripts, however, should
+	handled by ucf.  Package installation scripts, however, must
 	not change this file, but use the <prgn>update-texmf</prgn>
 	mechanism.  Local administrators are encouraged to use the
 	<prgn>update-texmf</prgn> mechanism, too.

Again.

Does anybody see a reason to keep it as "should" - yes, I do.  The tetex
packages themselves do that, they force the introduction of VARTEXMF.
But I think if we still need this for etch, it should be switched to
tex-common, and for every other package it is a must clause.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer



Reply to: