Bug#182405: tetex-bin: no need for jadetex stuff in /etc/texmf/texmf.d

[Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>]

From: Adam DiCarlo <adam@onshored.com>
Subject: Bug#182405: tetex-bin: no need for jadetex stuff in /etc/texmf/texmf.d
Date: 25 Feb 2003 12:50:41 -0600

> > Our policy is (not official yet but)
> > 
> > Filenames of files in /etc/texmf/texmf.d/
> >   They should be, for example 34foo.cnf, that is, with only lower case letters.
> >   Upper case was reserved only for tetex-bin.  This is not "must" condition
> >   but this will make it easy for a user to find which files are basic and
> >   which are additional.
> 
> You might want to go further and specify they are ##packagename.cnf .

Yes, in case of a package.  But there could be a private
34foo.cnf to add some entries to texmf.cnf

Anyway, it would be good to add your advise in the above 
sentence in some way.

> >   They should be configuration files but not conffiles.  If not, even after
> >   removing your package, unnecessary entries will remain in texmf.cnf, so
> >   this is critical.  And you should rename them at removing and should
> >   remove them at purging (and then, of course you should run
> >   update-texmf).
> 
> Rename them to what?

I assume to rename 96jadetex.cnf to 96jadetex.bak, for
example.  This will remove unnecessary entries of jadetex 
from texmf.cnf

Further, at reinstallation, if there is 96jadetex.bak
it should be renamed (moved) to 96jadetex.cnf again.
(I'm not so sure but, as far as I understand, Debian Policy
said so.)

> Why do I have to have all this apparatus of configuration file but not
> conffile?  That adds a lot of work and maintenance for me.  What is
> the harm if there are some jadetex settings which are ignored in
> texmf.cnf ?

Yes, it is true that the above handling add a lot of work
for maintainers.

And it might be no harm even if jadetex settings remained
in texmf.cnf after removing jadetex in case jadetex at present.

But, generally, removing unnecessary settings from texmf.cnf
would be desirable.

For example, if there is CJK support jadetex-cjk and it
diverts /usr/bin/jadetex and needs modification of
TEXINPUTS.jadetex then settings of jadetex might cause
trouble.

This is the real story in case dvips.  There is dvipsk-ja
and its settings and settings of genuine dvips contradict.

So, it would be best to follow the above Policy if you are 
willing to do a bit extra work ;) 

# not bindings but a guideline anyway.

Thanks for your cooperation.
				2003-2-26(Wed)
-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda@debian.org>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.