Frank Küster wrote: > Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> [including #350992 again that I had removed previously by accident] >> >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 18:36 +0100, Norbert Preining wrote: >>> On Son, 19 Feb 2006, Ralf Stubner wrote: >>> > Indeed it looks as if the mktex* in TEXMFMAIN/web2c as well as their >>> > configuration files mktex*.opt are explicitly searched in TEXMFMAIN. >>> > Therefore I would suggest to keep them there. The same for tcfmgr and >>> > related files in TEXMFMAIN/texconfig. >>> >>> Good, can we create a list? > > I have added a remark in the Policy, but I guess we'd rather not include > the list there, okay?
Yes. The list is useful for coordinating, but not policy material. >> If we decide to keep pool files in TEXMFMAIN, this requirement should be >> documented in the TeX Policy. > > The sentence is: > > Instead, the basic TeX packages install their files into their TEXMFDIST > directories [1] , while TEXMFMAIN is used by TeX add-on packages for > their files and allows them to shadow older versions provided by the > - basic TeX packages. > + basic TeX packages. A couple of files from the basic TeX packages still > + need to be placed in TEXMFMAIN [2]. > > with the footnote [2]: > > Reasons include hardcoded paths in executables as well as the need for > e.g. pool files to exactly match the binaries' version, so that > shadowing must be prevented. Looks good. cheerio ralf
