Bug#365513: tex-common: please clarify long description for "defoma" debconf item

["James R. Van Zandt" <jrvz@comcast.net>]

Frank -

>   > Please clarify.  I am a Debian developer, and I build Debian
>   > packages.  Does this mean I should not use defoma to manage TeX
>   > fonts?
>
>   First of all, this has nothing to do with defoma.  The question is
>   whether file permissions of font files are managed by debconf, or
>   manually by the local administrator.

Ah - I'd gotten it confused with another question.

>   ... but this is just because it is required for automatic installs on
>   Debian package building machines.  In almost every other setup...

Well, my machine builds Debian packages too :-).  

I suggest one or more of these:

1) specifically mention the buildds.  E.g. "Recommended, except for a
buildd."

2) Change the default to suit 99% of the cases, and handle the buildds
some other way.  E.g. isn't there a way to point debconf to a database
of answers?  I thought there was a mechanism like that, specifically
designed for automated installations.

3) Explain what it means for debconf to manage the permissions.
Something like:

   If you do not accept, then any fonts not in the cache will be
   generated on the fly for every document.  This is the default.
  
   If you accept, then fonts generated by users in one group will be
   cached.  This saves processing time, costs some disk space, and
   might compromise security (those users would have write permissions
   for the font cache).  This choice is recommended if you trust some
   TeX users.  You have to manually add those users to the chosen
   group!

Note that this way, you don't really have to mention the buildds.
Just invoke security.  BTW I seem to remember a mechanism to clear out
rarely-used fonts from the cache.  You might mention that, or point to
the relevant documentation.

               - Jim Van Zandt