Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [first part snipped with ACK]
>> Well, I thought of a "I want to configure, but something goes wrong" >> sort of bug where the maintainer first thinks you are a DAU and only >> slowly figures out that their package might not be in ideal shape. >> Had a couple of these filed against tetex... > > I think the comment in /etc/gs-gpl/Fontmap are to obvious for that: > > %! > % See Fontmap.GS for the syntax of real Fontmap files > (Fontmap.GS) .runlibfile > > So something like 'Why isn't Fontmap.GS a configfile?' That looks to me as if Fontmap.GS is a default setup file that is loaded if nothing else is done in /etc/gs-gpl/Fontmap, but you can also remove this call and instead configure all by hand, doesn't it? So from a policy point of view everything is okay. Or not, since it seems that there is no separate Fontmap for the other gs applications, but separate Fontmap.GS files. Don't the other packages have a configuration file? No, they haven't - gs-gpl's /usr/share/gs-gpl/8.01/lib/Fontmap is a symlink to /etc/gs-gpl/Fontmap, but gs-esp's analogon is not. > together with > 'Why does Fontmap.GS contain fonts that are not supplied by gsfonts?' > would be more appropriate. Indeed. Also, it refers to a file "fonts.doc" which is not included in the binary package. Do you know whether earlier entries take precedence, or later overwrite earlier ones? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
