"James R. Van Zandt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2) Change the default to suit 99% of the cases, and handle the buildds > some other way. E.g. isn't there a way to point debconf to a database > of answers? I thought there was a mechanism like that, specifically > designed for automated installations.
Unfortunately that's not feasible. There's no canonical way to set up a buildd, and we cannot require buildd admins, testers etc. to preseed their debconf database just because this particular package needs it. > 3) Explain what it means for debconf to manage the permissions. > Something like: > > If you do not accept, then any fonts not in the cache will be > generated on the fly for every document. This is the default. Unfortunately that's not true: Font generation will fail if you don't have write permissions. > If you accept, then fonts generated by users in one group will be > cached. This saves processing time, costs some disk space, and > might compromise security (those users would have write permissions > for the font cache). This choice is recommended if you trust some > TeX users. You have to manually add those users to the chosen > group! > > Note that this way, you don't really have to mention the buildds. > Just invoke security. Personally, I don't think this is much clearer. It also doesn't explain why the built-in default is different from what is recommended, especially since a buildd is one of the best situations with respect to trusting one's users. > BTW I seem to remember a mechanism to clear out > rarely-used fonts from the cache. You might mention that, or point to > the relevant documentation. Hm, I don't remember such a mechanism. Any of the others? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
