[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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



"James R. Van Zandt" <jrvz@comcast.net> wrote:

> 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.

Unfortunately that's not feasible.  There's no canonical way to set up a
buildd, and we cannot require buildd admins, testers etc. to preseed
their debconf database just because this particular package needs it.

> 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.

Unfortunately that's not true: Font generation will fail if you don't
have write permissions.

>    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.  

Personally, I don't think this is much clearer.  It also doesn't explain
why the built-in default is different from what is recommended,
especially since a buildd is one of the best situations with respect to
trusting one's users.

> 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.

Hm, I don't remember such a mechanism.  Any of the others?

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)




Reply to: