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

Bug#403026: marked as done (TeX Policy, TEXMFSYSCONFIG and TeXlive)

Your message dated Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:21:22 +0200
with message-id <87k5isxx0t.fsf@riesling.zuerich.kuesterei.ch>
and subject line This has long been settled and solved
has caused the Debian Bug report #403026,
regarding TeX Policy, TEXMFSYSCONFIG and TeXlive
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
403026: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=403026
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: tex-common
Version: 0.42
Severity: normal

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:

> On Die, 12 Dez 2006, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>>     * Decide whether TeXlive continues to work with conffile links and a
>>       separate /etc/texmf/texlive, or switch to the teTeX scheme, and implement
>
> I don't understand?


TEXMFSYSCONFIG=/etc/texmf

Consequently, the files that are now below /etc/texmf/texlive could be
at their "ordinary" places instead, 

/etc/texmf/texlive/dvips/config.ps -> /etc/texmf/dvips/config

and the symlinks removed.  The current setup is a bit against the
written TeX policy, but it's necessary for cooperation with tetex.  Now,
if we drop tetex, we can reconsider this: Either move them into their
ordinary texconfig locations, or keep it and change policy.

The drawback of the first (and of the way policy is written in general)
is that we get the same problem again if someone packages miktex in 10
years (or so), or that we need to deal with "shared configuration
files".  On the other hand, if we keep them in the texlive subdirectory,
the whole purpose of TEXMFSYSCONFIG is defeated.  I think the long
discussion about tetex's adoption of this hierarchy has shown that the
issue is complex, but that all in all having and using TEXMFSYSCONFIG is
better. 

Maybe shared configuration files are not a bad idea, I should look up
the Debian Policy about that.

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

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Hi,

this bug was about whether texlive should continue to work with
conffiles in /etc/texmf/texlive, instead of /etc/texmf proper, and the
necessary changes to the TeX policy.

Since I cannot find a log entry about changes in the policy (not even in
the SVN log), I just close this bug without a version.

Regards, Frank

-- 
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

--- End Message ---
Reply to: