Hilmar Preusse <hill...@web.de> wrote: >> Yes, it would be good. I'll think it over, and keep the bug open under a >> different title, and with lower severity. >> > Are you still willing to work on this or should we simply close it, in > the hope that TL is not affected?
TeXLive is affected for sure. I think there might be a way around this - but it would require some rather complex scripting. Somehow we need to find out whether ucf asked a question about changes to files in texmf.d, and what the answer was. Or maybe that isn't needed: We generate texmf.cnf twice: Once before changing files in texmf.d (the result should be in a temporary directory) and once the regular way after the changes. If there is no difference between the "real" texmf.cnf and the temporary one generated before doing anything in texmf.cnf, then the "real" texmf.cnf has not been edited. Thus we know that we can call ucf with --force-confnew from update-texmf. This would have prevented the reporter's confusion. If there is a difference before changing texmf.d files, we could even note down that difference, and try to re-apply the diff to the new generated one. But that is a dangerous thing to do. BTW - I'm just thinking loudly. I'm not going to be able to do any detailed specification or coding. Regards, Frank -- Dr. Frank Küster VCD Miltenberg, ADFC Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg Debian Developer (TeXLive) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
