Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-09 Thread Hartmut Henkel
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, George N. White III wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Thomas Esser wrote:
>
> > > Did you notice that the table of contents of the INSTALL file is
> > > still:
> >
> > Yes, I noticed it when I looked it up today. Unfortunately, I did
> > not notice it before the release. :-(
>
> Nor any of the testers!  Microsoft has the advantage that they can
> hire someone who has never used a product

they have lots of testers actually _paying_ for it (called "users").

> and ask them to try installing it during testing.

SCNR, Regards, Hartmut


Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-09 Thread David R. Morrison
On Feb 8, 2005, at 2:08 PM, Thomas Esser wrote:
Did you notice that the table of contents of the INSTALL file is 
still:
Yes, I noticed it when I looked it up today. Unfortunately, I did not
notice it before the release. :-(
Thomas
While we're all belatedly proofreading the INSTALL file: I've just 
noticed that, in section 3, you probably want an extra line in the 
standard directory layout:

  $HOME/texmf % user tree for added fonts and macros
(since this seems to be present by default in texmf.cnf).
  -- Dave


Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-08 Thread George N. White III
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Thomas Esser wrote:
Did you notice that the table of contents of the INSTALL file is still:
Yes, I noticed it when I looked it up today. Unfortunately, I did not
notice it before the release. :-(
Nor any of the testers!  Microsoft has the advantage that they can hire 
someone who has never used a product and ask them to try installing it 
during testing.  TeTeX testers tend to be experienced so most probably 
didn't bother reading INSTALL.  It would be nice to get a few people who 
are new to TeX involved in testing.

--
George N. White III  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-08 Thread George N. White III
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Thomas Esser wrote:
What would help is some tools to check for duplicates across all the
texmf trees so at least you can more easily determine when things in
$TEXMFHOME or $TEXMFLOCAL have become older than versions in updated
system trees.
Such as the one mentioned in Appendix G of the INSTALL document?
   =
G) scanning texmf trees for duplicates
   
Yes, although it would help to put a separator between the 'ls -l' output
and the md5sum, e.g.:
  $info =~ s/ ([^ ]+$)/$md $1/;
--
George N. White III  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-08 Thread Thomas Esser
> Did you notice that the table of contents of the INSTALL file is still:

Yes, I noticed it when I looked it up today. Unfortunately, I did not
notice it before the release. :-(

Thomas


Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-08 Thread Frank Küster
Thomas Esser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:

>> What would help is some tools to check for duplicates across all the
>> texmf trees so at least you can more easily determine when things in
>> $TEXMFHOME or $TEXMFLOCAL have become older than versions in updated
>> system trees.  
>
> Such as the one mentioned in Appendix G of the INSTALL document?
>
> 
> =
>  G) scanning texmf trees for duplicates
> 
> =
> ...

Did you notice that the table of contents of the INSTALL file is still:

,
|   [...]
|   7) final configuration steps
|   A) appendix: notes on some platforms
|   B) appendix: note on moving the binaries around
|   C) appendix: note on updating a single applications
|   D) appendix: recreating format files
| 
| 
`

appendices E to G are not mentioned.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer



Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-08 Thread Thomas Esser
> What would help is some tools to check for duplicates across all the
> texmf trees so at least you can more easily determine when things in
> $TEXMFHOME or $TEXMFLOCAL have become older than versions in updated
> system trees.  

Such as the one mentioned in Appendix G of the INSTALL document?


=
 G) scanning texmf trees for duplicates

=
...

:-)

Thomas


Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-08 Thread George White
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005, Thomas Esser wrote:

> > I have tried to understand how texconfig works if a user invokes it. As
> > far as I can see, for every configuration file they touch, a copy is
> > generated in TEXMFCONFIG (which is $HOME/.texmf-config by default).
> 
> Right.
> 
> > This seems to have the (probably unwanted effect) that the user is thus
> > cut-off from site-wide changes.
> 
> The same is true if some user puts a custom copy of koma-script into
> his $TEXMFHOME.
> 
> > If a user changes a configuration file $cfile for the first time, the
> > changed file after "check_out" is not only copied or cat'ed to
> > $TEXMFCONFIG/$relDir/$cfile, but additionally a diff or the change regex
> 
> Well, this sounds like a complicated solution (different config files
> would need different kind of updates) with a questionable effect.

What would help is some tools to check for duplicates across all the
texmf trees so at least you can more easily determine when things in
$TEXMFHOME or $TEXMFLOCAL have become older than versions in updated
system trees.  

--
George White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
189 Parklea Dr., Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia  B3Z 2G6


Re: texconfig action and site-wide changes

2005-02-08 Thread Thomas Esser
Hi Frank,

> It seems to me that "texconfig-sys init" should call fmtutil-sys and
> updmap-sys, too, not fmtutil and updmap plain - I didn't check for
> texlinks.]

That is wrong, just try
  texconfig-sys formats
change some bits in the config file (->goes via "fmtutil --edit" to
TEXMFSYSCONFIG) and the changed/added formats to via "fmtutil --byfmt"
to TEXMFSYSVAR).

The environment manipulation done in texconfig-sys has of course not
only some effect on the texconfig script that it calls, but also to all
other subprocesses.

> I have tried to understand how texconfig works if a user invokes it. As
> far as I can see, for every configuration file they touch, a copy is
> generated in TEXMFCONFIG (which is $HOME/.texmf-config by default).

Right.

> This seems to have the (probably unwanted effect) that the user is thus
> cut-off from site-wide changes.

The same is true if some user puts a custom copy of koma-script into
his $TEXMFHOME.

> If a user changes a configuration file $cfile for the first time, the
> changed file after "check_out" is not only copied or cat'ed to
> $TEXMFCONFIG/$relDir/$cfile, but additionally a diff or the change regex

Well, this sounds like a complicated solution (different config files
would need different kind of updates) with a questionable effect.

Thomas