Re: Bug#379089: Configuration file shadowed?

2006-07-23 Thread Norbert Preining
Hi all! Short comment from TeX live side, out of St. Moritz before leaving to mountains: On Fre, 21 Jul 2006, Frank Küster wrote: - files that can be used to modify the behavior of programs, and/or files that make sense to customize site-wide behavior on a multiuser system (I just

Re: Bug#379089: Configuration file shadowed?

2006-07-22 Thread Ralf Stubner
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 18:12 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: foo.tex (or foo.sty in most cases) is indeed a library equivalent, but we are rather discussing whether an additional foo.cfg or foo.whatever that is loaded by foo.sty is a configuration file or not. I've come across at least one

Re: Bug#379089: Configuration file shadowed?

2006-07-21 Thread Frank Küster
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: severity 379089 serious thanks While it is true any file can be changed to change behaviour for TeX (like things can be changed in /usr/include/foo.h to change behaviour of a -dev package), any file with a name *.cnf is meant to be a

Re: Bug#379089: Configuration file shadowed?

2006-07-21 Thread Christoph Berg
Re: Frank Küster 2006-07-21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I believe that we need to rephrase the TeX Policy. But this requires not just to specifiy that each cfg file must be in /etc. Instead, I think we need to find a distinction between - files that can be used to modify the behavior of programs,

Re: Bug#379089: Configuration file shadowed?

2006-07-21 Thread Frank Küster
Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: Frank Küster 2006-07-21 [EMAIL PROTECTED] I believe that we need to rephrase the TeX Policy. But this requires not just to specifiy that each cfg file must be in /etc. Instead, I think we need to find a distinction between - files that can be