On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:52:33 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Now my understanding is;
the new mechanism might be okay if it first checks whether
texmf.cnf is an admin's file or a file generated by update-texmf
before generating texmf.cnf and overwrites it only
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
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:52:33 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
the new mechanism might be okay if it first checks whether
texmf.cnf is an admin's file or a file generated by update-texmf
before generating texmf.cnf and overwrites it only in the case it
On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 03:53:12PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
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.
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:45:44 -0500
For example, I set up a Debian machine in a lab with other,
non debian machines. I note that all the machines have default
texmf.cnf behaviour
* Atsuhito Kohda
I don't know how you create texmf.cnf but it would be enough
if you create it in Debian and distribute it to other machines
Jesus. You still haven't got the point. Repeat after me:
I am *NOT* permitted to make that decision on behalf of the user.
On the other hands, in
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:45:11PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
On the other hands, in Debian which is an association of
volunteers, a developer can package any DFSG-free TeX components
or DFSG-free extra fonts packages freely so we need an infra-structure
which provides dynamic
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:36:01 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I wondered whether this use of ucf is safe. If postinst fails for
any reason, and package is reconfigured, the backup file is
overwritten. An
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:45:11PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
I don't know how you create texmf.cnf but it would be enough if you
create it in Debian and distribute it to other machines (but under
the condition that you use only compatible TeX components which is
your case, perhaps).
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:45:11 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr
2003 20:45:44 -0500
For example, I set up a Debian machine in a lab with other, non
, with the way of update-modules).
Is this right?
Well, I had an impression from the prases like;
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
I am sorry, I do think that not preserving user changes
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:52:43 -0500
Without the current cheme all TeX system breaks so, in short, the
new scheme is indispensable infrastructure for TeX system and there
is no choice
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:04:50 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr
2003 20:52:43 -0500
Without the current cheme all TeX system breaks so, in short
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:28:38 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr
2003 20:52:43 -0500
Sorry to say but I should say that you don't have enough
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:38:25 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr
2003 20:57:11 -0500
I don't understand why you say an admin may no longer freely
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:13:50 -0500
Perhaps you are happy because you would live happily with only
original TeX. Did you ever try to install jadetex, xmltex,
alml,jtex, ptex, dvipsk
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:18:35 -0500
So you do not understand the value of being compatible with
other TeX installations? You think it is not arrogant for Debian to
assume the rest
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
The current texmf.cnf of Debian is completely the same as the one
upstream teTeX provided, if no local modification files are put in
/etc/texmf/texmf.d/ There is no specific for Debian at all.
Gosh, read what Manoj's been
Ah, pissing contest. OK, I have been building TeX since 1989,
when we used to buy tapes and compile TeX on a dozen Unix systems at
the university. This was before TeTeX, before Debian, and even Before
Linux. So, I have 14 years of experience with TeX -- how much more do
I need to have to
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you do not understand the value of being compatible with
other TeX installations? You think it is not arrogant for Debian to
assume the rest of the world also runs Debian?
This issue has degenerated to name calling at this point, and in other
threads, Godwin's law has even been invoked, perhaps not to great
effect.
I agree with you Manoj, as I suspect most people who have commented on
this list, but perhaps this is time to refer the issue to the
Technical
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:53:09 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr
2003 02:18:35 -0500
So you do not understand the value of being compatible with other
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:04:38 -0400, Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
This issue has degenerated to name calling at this point, and in
other threads, Godwin's law has even been invoked, perhaps not to
great effect.
Yeah, I lost it in the last exchange.
I agree with you Manoj,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking
users if it is ok with them if we violate policy is not good
enough.
[...]
I would be glad to learn why ucf does it right.
In your opinion, is proftpd a
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:31:10 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking users if
it is ok with them if we violate policy is not good enough.
[...]
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:40:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:31:10 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking users if
it is
From: Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:17:15 +0200
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
The current texmf.cnf of Debian is completely the same as the one
upstream
From: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:23:26 +0100
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you do not understand the value of being
On Monday 21 April 2003 03:29 pm, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Am I missing something?
Only the fact that, as Debian maintainer, you do not have the right to decide
which files Debian users may or may not edit. Policy says they can do as
they like, regardless if you like it or your packages care for
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Keegan Quinn wrote:
On Monday 21 April 2003 03:29 pm, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Am I missing something?
Only the fact that, as Debian maintainer, you do not have the right to decide
which files Debian users may or may not edit. Policy says they can do as
they like,
Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In this case, administrator should modify TEXINPUTS.latex in
/etc/texmf/texmf.d/45TeXinputs.cnf and run update-texmf once.
Generated texmf.cnf should be the same as an old one.
What makes you think that special casing the Debian installations is
On Monday 21 April 2003 04:24 pm, Adam Heath wrote:
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Keegan Quinn wrote:
On Monday 21 April 2003 03:29 pm, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Am I missing something?
Only the fact that, as Debian maintainer, you do not have the right to
decide which files Debian users may or may
From: Marcelo E. Magallon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 01:45:07 +0200
Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In this case, administrator should modify TEXINPUTS.latex in
/etc/texmf/texmf.d/45TeXinputs.cnf
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:03:00 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Okay, I guessed that the old /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf was a conffile but
the current one is a configuration file so it's okay only reserving
the old file as texmf.cnf.dpkg-old and explain how to migrate to the
new
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:58:10 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
From: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#189370:
acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003
11:23:26 +0100
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
From
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:36:01 +0200, Denis Barbier [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I wondered whether this use of ucf is safe. If postinst fails for
any reason, and package is reconfigured, the backup file is
overwritten. An alternative is to abort postinst if -old already
exists, and to remove it
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:21:27 -0500
This doesn't work for texmf.cnf which also I told you once before.
And why does it not?
If the default is to keep your current version
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:24:47 -0500
Note users can add local modification freely with the current
method, please read README.Debian.
But an admin may no longer freely
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:08:04 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18 Apr
2003 12:24:47 -0500
Note users can add local modification freely with the current
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:40:16 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18 Apr
2003 12:21:27 -0500
This doesn't work for texmf.cnf which also I told you once
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:52:43 -0500
Sorry to say but I should say that you don't have enough knowledge
about TeX system.
Ah, pissing contest. OK, I have been building TeX since
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:57:11 -0500
I don't understand why you say an admin may no longer freely
synchronize the conffile?
I used to have TeX on 27 machines, including Ultrix
From: Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: 17 Apr 2003 21:56:00 -0400
You don't understand Debconf. It is a cache, not a registry. I should
be able to rm -rf /var/cache/debconf/config.dat *at any time*. If I do
that, since your
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 00:08, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Of course I can understand that it is possible to destroy
local changes as I wrote in a former email.
Ok, well, policy is quite clear this isn't allowed.
But let me say first that this is not to belittle your work on tetex;
I'm very glad
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
be asked whether to replace it or not everytime at upgrading.
Does this file really change so often that this is a
From: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:14:40 +0100
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
conffile so if one changed (manually
On 18 Apr 2003 03:23:44 -0400,
Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 00:08, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Of course I can understand that it is possible to destroy local
changes as I wrote in a former email.
Ok, well, policy is quite clear this isn't allowed.
I
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
From: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
be asked whether
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
From: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does this file really change so often that this is a problem? Users
will only be prompted if the distributed version of a conffile has
changed.
It is not problem how often language.dat
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
be asked whether to replace it or not everytime at upgrading.
IMHO it should only ask if the file has changed upstream. I
From: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:09:38 +0100
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
From: Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Does this file really change so often
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
I have an impression that such Policy understanding prevents sane
advance of packages.
I am sorry, I do think that not preserving user
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 03:23:44AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
It breaks Policy to some extent but follows it to some
extent, IMHO.
Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
be asked whether to replace it or not everytime
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:07:28 +0900 (JST),
Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Does this file really change so often that this is a problem?
Users will only be prompted if the distributed version of a
conffile has changed.
It is not problem how often language.dat changes but that if
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:09:38 +0100,
Mark Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current handling of texmf.cnf looks
reasonably sane to me - it's now not too dissimilar to how
/etc/modules.conf is handled. What I was trying to say was that in
the past there were
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 00:20:04 +0900 (JST),
Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18
Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
I have an impression that such Policy understanding prevents
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:20:04AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
From: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
I have an impression that such Policy understanding prevents sane
advance
[ forgot to CC my last message here to -devel ]
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 21:28, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
From: Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: 17 Apr 2003 20:32:41 -0400
reopen 189370
thanks
sigh.
I won't reopen it again
58 matches
Mail list logo
