Reinhard Kotucha <reinhard.kotu...@web.de> wrote: > On 5 January 2010 Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard wrote: > > > Hum, that's probably because I always forget they exist :-) Do you > > see any practical use case for configuration files here? I'm > > slightly reluctant to add yet another level of configuration files > > for texdoc... > > AFAIK these directories contain only files generated by a program.
No, not "only". The teTeX manual says about it: ,---- | TEXMFCONFIG The tree specified by this variable will be used by | teTEX’s utilities texconfig, updmap and fmtutil to store modified | configuration data. `---- (and similar for TEXMFSYSCONFIG). But that implies that user-changed files there (even files that would be created by texconfig, but have not yet been) will be respected. And I know from discussions with Thomas that the tree was always intended as *the* place for personal or side-wide configuration changes, respectively. That's why the tree comes before anything else. Manuel, wouldn't it be easier to simply search texdoc.cnf (and texdoc-bin.cnf or whatever) with kpse.find_file? I haven't looked into the code recently, but generally I think if a file looks into texmf trees, it should use kpathsea in any case, wherever possible. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster Debian Developer (TeXLive) VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
