Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> tetex-base would occur. If tetex-bin's postinst would call >> update-format, the problematic lines would not be present in fmtutil.cnf >> due to the present .dpkg-new file. > > I agree, we should get a tetex-bin that does this into etch, and check > texlive-*bin*.
Just committed. >> A general point: Recently I was thinking whether it would make sense to >> change the behaviour of 'format providing packages' such as tetex-base >> or jadetex: Right now they regerenate all formats, even though this is >> not necessary. Why not have them regenerate only those formats they >> actually provide? A simple way to achieve this would be to call >> >> fmtutil-sys --all --cnffile /etc/texmf/fmt.d/foo.cnf >> >> That way these packages would be more self contained and could not get >> as easily broken by other packages. Of course, the 'binary providing >> packages' such as tetex-bin would still have to regenerate all formats. > > I think that's a very good idea. ... but it isn't trivial to implement. The problem is that tetex-base and tetex-extra have only one shared configuration file, 01tetex.cnf, for the formats of both packages. This works because fmtutil silently ignores lines where the ini files are not present. Should we just go on and let tetex-base's and tetex-extra's postinst call create_tetex_formats --all --cnffile /etc/texmf/fmt.d/01tetex.cnf I think that would help, too, at least with jadetex and friends. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
