On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 03:53:12PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Really? As I explained already, I will put generated texmf.cnf under
> /var, because it is not a file for a user to modify it. I believe
> there are many such files under /var which don't preseve direct user
> modifications.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:52:33 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> the new mechanism might be okay if it first checks whether
> texmf.cnf is an admin's file or a file generated by update-texmf
> before generating texmf.cnf and overwrites it only in the case it
>
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:51:23 -0500
> Not quite. a) even if the file was generated by update-texmf,
> and the user modified it later, the user changes *must* be
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:52:33 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Now my understanding is;
> the new mechanism might be okay if it first checks whether
> texmf.cnf is an admin's file or a file generated by update-texmf
> before generating texmf.cnf and overwrites it
h the way of update-modules).
Is this right?
Well, I had an impression from the prases like;
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
> I am sorry, I do think that not preservin
On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:45:11 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr
> 2003 20:45:44 -0500
>> For example, I set up a D
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:45:11PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> I don't know how you create texmf.cnf but it would be enough if you
> create it in Debian and distribute it to other machines (but under
> the condition that you use only compatible TeX components which is
> your case, perhaps).
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 09:00:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:36:01 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > I wondered whether this use of ucf is safe. If postinst fails for
> > any reason, and package is reconfigured, the backup file is
> > overwritten.
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 23, 2003 at 04:45:11PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> On the other hands, in Debian which is an association of
> volunteers, a developer can package any DFSG-free TeX components
> or DFSG-free extra fonts packages freely so we need an infra-structure
> which provides dynamic tex
* Atsuhito Kohda
> I don't know how you create texmf.cnf but it would be enough
> if you create it in Debian and distribute it to other machines
Jesus. You still haven't got the point. Repeat after me:
"I am *NOT* permitted to make that decision on behalf of the user."
> On the other hands
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 20:45:44 -0500
> For example, I set up a Debian machine in a lab with other,
> non debian machines. I note that all the machines have default
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:36:01 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I wondered whether this use of ucf is safe. If postinst fails for
> any reason, and package is reconfigured, the backup file is
> overwritten. An alternative is to abort postinst if -old already
> exists, and to remov
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 07:58:10 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#189370:
> acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003
> 11:23:26 +0100
>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 10:03:00 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Okay, I guessed that the old /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf was a conffile but
> the current one is a configuration file so it's okay only reserving
> the old file as texmf.cnf.dpkg-old and explain how to migrate to the
>
From: "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 01:45:07 +0200
> >> Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In this case, administrator should modify TE
On Monday 21 April 2003 04:24 pm, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> > On Monday 21 April 2003 03:29 pm, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > > Am I missing something?
> >
> > Only the fact that, as Debian maintainer, you do not have the right to
> > decide which files Debian users
>> Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In this case, administrator should modify TEXINPUTS.latex in
> /etc/texmf/texmf.d/45TeXinputs.cnf and run update-texmf once.
> Generated texmf.cnf should be the same as an old one.
What makes you think that special casing the Debian installation
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> On Monday 21 April 2003 03:29 pm, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > Am I missing something?
>
> Only the fact that, as Debian maintainer, you do not have the right to decide
> which files Debian users may or may not edit. Policy says they can do as
> they like,
On Monday 21 April 2003 03:29 pm, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Am I missing something?
Only the fact that, as Debian maintainer, you do not have the right to decide
which files Debian users may or may not edit. Policy says they can do as
they like, regardless if you like it or your packages care for
From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 11:23:26 +0100
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > S
From: "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:17:15 +0200
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>
> > The current texmf.cnf of Debian is co
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 11:40:49AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:31:10 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking users i
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:31:10 +0200, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> [...]
>> Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking users if
>> it is ok with them if we violate policy is not good enough.
> [...]
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 02:15:59AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
[...]
> Over writing user changes is a violation of policy. Asking
> users if it is ok with them if we violate policy is not good
> enough.
[...]
I would be glad to learn why ucf does it right.
In your opinion, is proftpd a
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 08:04:38 -0400, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> This issue has degenerated to name calling at this point, and in
> other threads, Godwin's law has even been invoked, perhaps not to
> great effect.
Yeah, I lost it in the last exchange.
> I agree with you Man
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 17:53:09 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Mon, 21 Apr
> 2003 02:18:35 -0500
>> So you do not understand th
This issue has degenerated to name calling at this point, and in other
threads, Godwin's law has even been invoked, perhaps not to great
effect.
I agree with you Manoj, as I suspect most people who have commented on
this list, but perhaps this is time to refer the issue to the
Technical Committee,
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > So you do not understand the value of being compatible with
> > other TeX installations? You think it is not arrogant for Debian to
> > assume the rest of the world also runs Debi
> Ah, pissing contest. OK, I have been building TeX since 1989,
> when we used to buy tapes and compile TeX on a dozen Unix systems at
> the university. This was before TeTeX, before Debian, and even Before
> Linux. So, I have 14 years of experience with TeX -- how much more do
> I need to hav
On Mon, Apr 21, 2003 at 05:53:09PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> The current texmf.cnf of Debian is completely the same as the one
> upstream teTeX provided, if no local modification files are put in
> /etc/texmf/texmf.d/ There is no specific for Debian at all.
Gosh, read what Manoj's been
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:18:35 -0500
> So you do not understand the value of being compatible with
> other TeX installations? You think it is not arrogant for Debian to
&
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:13:50 -0500
> > Perhaps you are happy because you would live happily with only
> > original TeX. Did you ever try to install jadetex, xmltex,
&
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:38:25 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr
> 2003 20:57:11 -0500
>> > I don't understand
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 12:28:38 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr
> 2003 20:52:43 -0500
>> > Sorry to say but I
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 13:04:50 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr
> 2003 20:52:43 -0500
>> > Without the current chem
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:52:43 -0500
> > Without the current cheme all TeX system breaks so, in short, the
> > new scheme is indispensable infrastructure for TeX system a
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:57:11 -0500
> > I don't understand why you say "an admin may no longer freely
> > synchronize the conffile"?
>
> I use
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:52:43 -0500
> > Sorry to say but I should say that you don't have enough knowledge
> > about TeX system.
>
> Ah, pissing cont
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:40:16 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18 Apr
> 2003 12:21:27 -0500
>> > This doesn't work
On Mon, 21 Apr 2003 10:08:04 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18 Apr
> 2003 12:24:47 -0500
>> > Note users can add loca
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:24:47 -0500
> > Note users can add local modification freely with the current
> > method, please read README.Debian.
>
> But an ad
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:21:27 -0500
> > This doesn't work for texmf.cnf which also I told you once before.
>
> And why does it not?
>
> > If the
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 12:20:04AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
>
> > >> I have an impression that such Poli
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 00:20:04 +0900 (JST),
>> Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re:
> Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18
> Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
>> &
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:09:38 +0100,
>> Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Sorry, I wasn't clear. The current handling of texmf.cnf looks
> reasonably sane to me - it's now not too dissimilar to how
> /etc/modules.conf is handled. What I was trying to say was that in
> the past there
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:07:28 +0900 (JST),
>> Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Does this file really change so often that this is a problem?
>> Users will only be prompted if the distributed version of a
>> conffile has changed.
> It is not problem how often language.dat changes
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 03:23:44AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> > It breaks Policy to some extent but follows it to some
> > extent, IMHO.
> > Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> > conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
> > be asked whether to replace it or not
From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500
> >> I have an impression that such Policy understanding prevents sane
> >> advance of packages.
>
> I am sorry,
From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 12:09:38 +0100
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > Does this
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
> be asked whether to replace it or not everytime at upgrading.
IMHO it should only ask if the file has changed upstream. I
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Does this file really change so often that this is a problem? Users
> > will only be prompted if the distributed version of a conffile has
> > changed.
> It is not problem how often languag
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 06:07:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> > > Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> > > conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
> > > be
>> On 18 Apr 2003 03:23:44 -0400,
>> Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 00:08, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>> Of course I can understand that it is possible to destroy local
>> changes as I wrote in a former email.
> Ok, well, policy is quite clear this isn't allowed.
From: Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:14:40 +0100
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>
> > Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> > co
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 01:08:28PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Former tetex packages provided language.dat as a
> conffile so if one changed (manually!) it then one would
> be asked whether to replace it or not everytime at upgrading.
Does this file really change so often that this is a probl
On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 00:08, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> Of course I can understand that it is possible to destroy
> local changes as I wrote in a former email.
Ok, well, policy is quite clear this isn't allowed.
But let me say first that this is not to belittle your work on tetex;
I'm very glad you
From: Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
Date: 17 Apr 2003 21:56:00 -0400
> You don't understand Debconf. It is a cache, not a registry. I should
> be able to rm -rf /var/cache/debconf/config.dat *at any time*. If I do
> that, since you
[ forgot to CC my last message here to -devel ]
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 21:28, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> From: Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant)
> Date: 17 Apr 2003 20:32:41 -0400
>
> > reopen 189370
> > thanks
>
> sigh.
I won't reopen i
58 matches
Mail list logo
