"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So you can for example have 4 config sets (each in its own location):
> - one with the upstream default values
> - one with overrides for upstream settings by maintainer
> - one with cdd-overrides for the settings
> - one with admin-overrid
On Monday 21 November 2005 16:44, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > on the debian-tetex-maint mailing list we often have problems to decide
> > which of the thousands of TeX input files should be treated as
> > configuration files - in principle,
Hi all,
Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We are currently thinking about a
>> solution were there would be hardly any conffiles[1], but a local admin
>> could put copies of any file he likes into subdirectories of /etc/texmf.
>> This wo
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> on the debian-tetex-maint mailing list we often have problems to decide
> which of the thousands of TeX input files should be treated as
> configuration files - in principle, each of them can be changed in order
> to change the behavior of the sys
On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 11:31:22AM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on the debian-tetex-maint mailing list we often have problems to decide
> which of the thousands of TeX input files should be treated as
> configuration files - in principle, each of them can be changed in order
> to change th
On Nov 21, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do others think? Would it be acceptable Policy-wise to handle
> configuration like this?
Yes.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
6 matches
Mail list logo
