Re: teTeX and TeX Live interoperability
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> Since I asked just recently. There is one reason I have for shadowing a
> map file:
>
> TEX live ships the belleek fonts (replacements for MathTime) and install
> the respective map file.
>
> I own a copy of MathTime(Pro) and want to use *MY* fonts not the belleek
> ones.
>
> Now there are two options:
> - edit the updmap.d config file
> - shadow it in /usr/local/share/texmf (if it would work)
>
> The advantage of the second approach is:
> - I do not edit any config file, thus upgrades bring me all the new
> stuff without the danger of me ignoring a file upgrade.
> - I have one centralized location where I shadow stuff, and I always
> find what I did.
This is a valid point, yes. On the other hand, the configuration tools
included in teTex act on TEXMFSYSCONFIG if run by root, and for them to
work, it must be before TEXMFLOCAL.
It also seems to me as if separating configuration files of teTeX,
texlive, and add-on packages into /etc/texmf/tetex, /etc/texmf/texlive,
and /etc/texmf will not work, since in this setup precedence is
problematic: If /etc/texmf comes first, texconfig-sys will act on files
there (creating them newly if needed), and any updates of the same files
that come in with the basic TeX packages will be ignored, without asking
any questions. If one of the others comes first, again we have the
problem which one it should be. And, graver still, if someone has both
installed, with teTeX in front, and has altered some files with
texconfig-sys, believing this is a real site-wide configuration: What
happens when he decides to use texlive only in the future? If he only
removes teTeX, only its configfiles will be there, *and* in effect for
*texlive*, while texlive's own copies are ineffective. On the other
hand, if he purges teTeX, the configuration is lost, although I expect
many to believe that it is general to both.
It seems to me as if the idea to have
TEXMF = {!!$TEXMFCONFIG,!!$TEXMFVAR,$TEXMFHOME,!!$TEXMFSYSCONFIG,\
!!$TEXMFSYSVAR,!!$TEXMFLOCAL,!!$TEXMFMAIN,!!$TEXMFDIST}
with
TEXMFSYSCONFIG=/etc/texmf
TEXMFMAIN=/usr/share/texmf %(for other packages)
TEXMFDIST=/usr/share/{texmf-tetex,texmf-texlive} %still don't know the best order
would work, but separating configuration files requires more thinking
and perhaps more complicated mechanisms of merging. And with the
approach you proposed below, it seems it isn't needed.
> And then there is also the problem (how is it solved in tetex3 in
> debian) that the updmap.cfg file is in /var/lib/texmf/web2c and is not
> found, at least I remember such a problem.
I don't remember such problems, unless people somehow had a static
updmap.cfg in /usr/share/texmf/web2c, where no package has ever put it.
What do you think about?
> So if we set TEXMFSYSCONFIG to /etc/texmf we would still have the
> problem that the map files are already in the /etc/texmf directory.
You mean, a problem during upgrade, because changed map files in
TEXMFDIST would be shadowed by old map conffiles in /etc/texmf? That's
bad. But I think it is allowed to move old conffiles out of the way to
/etc/texmf/unused_conffiles (we already do it, although I don't recall
the directory name exactly), so we could do this with all of them.
> But then again, we could move OUT of /etc/texmf *most* files which would
> be some very comfortable thing.
>
> Configuration would be done by copying files from TEXMFMAIN to
> /etc/temxf and adapting them.
>
> Is this a working solution?
It seems the best proposed so far, and I currently cannot see the flaws,
if it has some.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: