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: