Re: teTeX and TeX Live interoperability
Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@web.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2005 at 18:22 +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
>>
>> > I find the
>> > configuration files for LaTeX packages really annoying (graphics.sty is
>> > an exception IMO).
>>
>> What do you find annoying, and what is better with graphics.cfg?
>
> I should have been more specific. I find it annoying when configuration
> files are used by default to define default values (eg adr*.cfg) or to
> define new commands and even load packages (eg efxmpl.cfg). IMO things
> like this belong into the package itself. Also, configuration files
> generaly reduce the portability of a document. I think it is better to
> make such adjustments in the preamble of the document.
I agree. It's not really our first responsibility as Debian teTeX
maintainers, but it would be good to educate package authors, and to
provide patches.
> Another exception are things like graphics.cfg, color.cfg or hyperef.cfg
> that have the code for detecting the TeX engine in their configuration
> file. This makes sense since it is system dependent, what default option
> should be used with standard latex ('dvips' with teTeX). But even here I
> would prefer if only this setting would be done in the default config
> files.
Yes, and why not have one system-wide file that is loaded by every
package to detect the TeX engine? If you look at graphics.cfg, the
major part doesn't look like something any medium experienced user
should touch, while the end (file extensions) might well need to be
configured even by a beginner.
>> Couldn't we collect all files that we think are possible configuration
>> files in TEXMFDIST/tex/latex/cfg (not in config because the ini files
>> which are already there should not be treated as configuration files)?
>> We'd put a README file there, telling users how to handle them.
>
> Sounds reasonable when combined with documentation about the existance
> of this directory. I am not sure, though, if this would comply with the
> policy manual (10.7 Configuration files).
I think this does comply with Policy - it is simply a hint which files
make sense as configuration files, while it is in principle possible to
move a copy of any file to /etc/texmf. The only concern is what happens
when one of these files change. But I don't think this is really a big
problem, if we document it. There might be rare cases where a change in
syntax or the necessity to define some macro in the configuration file
would cause the package to no longer work. But that is less annoying
than what happens when an incompatible change happens in texmf.cnf or
updmap.cfg.
> What files should be left in
> /etc/texmf/?
- The snippets in updmap.d, fmt.d, texmf.d, language.d
- All toplevel directories, even if empty
- a copy/symlink of the README file
I am unsure about non-LaTeX configuration files (dvipdfm/config,
cyrplain/cyrtex.cfg and so on).
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: