From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:51:23 -0500
> Not quite. a) even if the file was generated by update-texmf, > and the user modified it later, the user changes *must* be > preserved. Really? As I explained already, I will put generated texmf.cnf under /var, because it is not a file for a user to modify it. I believe there are many such files under /var which don't preseve direct user modifications. And, of course, user's modifications of files in /etc/texmf/texmf.d are preserved in the generated texmf.cnf. It not only preserves user's modification but also keeps unmodified parts completely up-to-date at any time and contains only necessary and sufficient stuffs in it at any time. This was achieved through co-operation with many maintainers of TeX related packages. Only when a user selects not to use update-texmf, texmf.cnf will be put under /etc and the user should be responsible for it. > preserved. Secondly, You are missing the fact that you ought to ask > if the user wants your new file or not. We can't just leave the user > out in the cold if they have local modifications to the file. Of course we ask, if not, we may leave many users in a state where they fail to install important TeX components afterwards. > So no, I don't think the behaviour described above is > optimal. I don't say it is optimal but, at least, it doesn't overwrite texmf.cnf contrary to admin's wishes any more. Thanks, 2003-4-24(Thu) -- Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
