Re: tex-common 0.11, conffiles in /e/t/texlive, texlive to experimental

[Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>]

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:

> Hi Frank!
>
> On Die, 22 Nov 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
>> $ kpsewhich --progname latex --show-path tex | tr ':' '\n' | grep etc
>> !!/etc/texmf/tex/latex//
>> !!/etc/texmf/tex/generic//
>> !!/etc/texmf/tex///
>> 
>> Together with
>> 
>> ,---- info kpathsea 3.3.6
>> | Two or more consecutive slashes in a path element following a directory
>> | D is replaced by all subdirectories of D: first those subdirectories
>> | directly under D, then the subsubdirectories under those, and so on.
>> `----
>> 
>> this seems to imply that the complete /etc/texmf/tex directory will be
>> searched, including all subdirectories.  The problem with this would be
>> that files installed by texlive in /etc/texmf/texlive would be found (by
>> teTeX's executables) even if texlive is removed, and vice versa.
>
> ??? Why? texlive is a *different* name than *tex*. I guess the check is
> on directory level, so tex/// does *NOT* use texlive/ directory for
> searching. Why should it?

Oh, sorry - I was totally confused.  I always read /etc/texmf/// as the
last item in the list.

>> I'm currently doing some test installs with tex-common 0.10.1/0.11 and
>> teTeX.
>
> Ok.

I am just building the final package.

>> later in etch's release cycle, anyway, so you can start with it now just
>> as well.  It's a service for people who update their testing/sid only
>
> Hmm, I have already started uploading -1 to the tug server. Maybe I will
> redo this. Maybe.

I fear you will get bug reports if it is in the archive without a
versioned depends.  I am not saying those are *valid* bugreports,
though. 

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