Re: Changes to the Policy
(just found this in my drafts folder - I hope I have not already sent
it).
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> On Don, 24 Nov 2005, Frank Küster wrote:
>> + <item><file>/usr/share/texmf-tetex/</file>, part of <var>TEXMFDIST</var></item>
>> + <item><file>/usr/share/texmf-texlive/</file>, part of <var>TEXMFDIST</var></item>
>
> Please see attached diff to tex-common to implement this in tex-common,
> together with user selection. Basic line:
>
> . Move the comments in texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf to texmf.d/00tex.cnf
> . create two files 04DistSelection.tetex and 04DistSelection.texlive
> . debian/config asks for wether tetex should come first or texlive
> . link 04DistSelection.cnf -> 04DistSelection.$selecteddistributionfirst
>
> Important question here is *what* we do if the file 04DistSelection.cnf
> is present but *not* a link to one of these files.
> ATM I recreate the file in any case as specified by the debconf
> question, but this is probably not the best solution.
Are you sure that we need to make it that complicated? Why not simply
decide for a sane default (which could be tetex before texlive at least
for a while) and let the users edit 04DistSelection.cnf if they want it?
This reminds me a little of my first months as a package maintainer -
after I had discovered and mastered debconf, I wanted to handle as much
as possible through it. However, today I believe that we should
restrict debconf usage to issues that are both important and have no
sane default. As a guideline, if you introduce a new debconf question
that is not related to an existing one, but find yourself giving it a
low priority, rather drop it.
I hope this doesn't sound too much like a grandfather's story - in fact
my experience with being a maintainer is rather short, too.
>> + A package must not install files into (subdirectories of)
>> + <file>/usr/share/texmf/doc</file>, which is a symbolic link to
>> + <file>/usr/share/doc/texmf</file>.
>
> Where should we put doc files? ATM I do the following:
> . put all the doc files in /u/s/d/$package/...
> . link /u/s/d/texlive/... -> /u/s/d/$package/...
>
> and have a link /u/s/texmf-texlive/doc -> /u/s/d/texlive
>
> Is this what we want?
In the paragraph above, the Policy offers both solutions; and I cannot
give a striking argument for or against either of them. I'd just leave
it to the maintainer's descretion. This new paragraph is only to make
sure that everything - files or symlinks - are created in
/usr/share/doc/texmf/, not
/usr/share/texmf/doc/
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: