Bug#607351: texlive-binaries: texdoc aliasing sometimes doesn't work
Dear Manuel,
a couple of months ago we discussed this issue about texdoc in Debian,
and I have different suggestion how to solve it.
Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch> wrote:
>> Texdoc doesn't look for the configuration file where it actually is (or
>> conversly, the config file isn't were texdoc expects it). So, the two obvious
>> (and mutually exclusive) solutions are:
>>
>> 1. symlink texdoc.cnf under TEXMFMAIN rather than TEXMFDIST
>> 2. 'patch' config.tlu with "sed -i s/TEXMFMAIN/TEXMFDIST/g" (I just checked, it
>> doesn't have any side effects).
>>
>> I guess 1 is the easiest, but I'm not sure how you handle TEXMFMAIN vs TEXMFDIST
>> in Debian, so...
>
> Thanks for the info and analysis. In the past, we've tried to separate
> TEXMFMAIN and TEXMFDIST differently from upstream [...]
Manuel, why does texdoc look for texdoc.cnf in particular directories?
Why doesn't it just do a kpathsea lookup for texdoc.cnf, thus looking in
all TEXMF trees defined on the site for the user running texdoc?
Hm, one explanation might be that there doesn't seem to be a way to get
kpathsea find texdoc.cnf at the places where it currently is. But that
could be fixed. I think the problem might become more general, and
maybe kpathsea should be changed to look for config files for script at
a particular place. TEXMF/config or TEXMF/scripts/config comes to
mind. In order to find the right file below that directory, a script
would declare its name as the "engine" and the configuration files could
be sorted as the scripts are now.
What do you think?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Vorstand B90/Grüne OV Miltenberg und Umgebung
VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
Reply to: