[Debian-tex-commits] SVN pkg-tetex-web commit + diffs: r2427 - pkg-tetex-web/trunk

[Frank Küster]

Author: frank
Date: 2007-02-05 11:37:42 +0100 (Mon, 05 Feb 2007)
New Revision: 2427

Added:
   pkg-tetex-web/trunk/TeX-configuration-on-Debian.pdf
   pkg-tetex-web/trunk/TeX-configuration-on-Debian.tex
Log:
add a scaffold for a conffile-discussion summary


Added: pkg-tetex-web/trunk/TeX-configuration-on-Debian.pdf
===================================================================
(Binary files differ)


Property changes on: pkg-tetex-web/trunk/TeX-configuration-on-Debian.pdf
___________________________________________________________________
Name: svn:mime-type
   + application/octet-stream

Added: pkg-tetex-web/trunk/TeX-configuration-on-Debian.tex
===================================================================
--- pkg-tetex-web/trunk/TeX-configuration-on-Debian.tex	2007-02-05 10:24:16 UTC (rev 2426)
+++ pkg-tetex-web/trunk/TeX-configuration-on-Debian.tex	2007-02-05 10:37:42 UTC (rev 2427)
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+\documentclass[smallheadings]{scrartcl}
+\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
+\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
+\usepackage[english]{babel}
+\usepackage{lmodern}
+\typearea{12}
+
+\newcommand*{\pkg}[1]{\textsf{#1}}
+\newcommand*{\file}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
+\newcommand*{\var}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
+\newcommand*{\prog}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
+
+\begin{document}
+
+\title{What's a configuration file, and\\ where should it go?}
+\author{Frank Küster}
+\date{February 2007}
+% \maketitle{}
+
+\twocolumn[{\csname @twocolumnfalse\endcsname
+  \maketitle
+  \begin{abstract}\noindent{}%
+  There are two questions with respect to configuration files which
+  have been raised over and over in Debian TeX packaging:  1. Which
+  files should be treated as configuration files and kept below
+  \file{/etc/texmf}?  2. Should the TeX packages make use of the
+  \var{TEXMFSYSCONFIG} tree?  This document tries to summarizes the
+  arguments that have been given in earlier discussions, in the hope
+  that it will help us to make a good decision for lenny, and serve as
+  a reference in the future when these issues come up again (and they
+  will\dots{}).
+  \end{abstract}
+}]
+
+\section{Which files should be treated as a configuration file?}
+\label{sec:which-files-should}
+
+\subsection{General rules in Debian}
+\label{sec:general-rules-debian}
+
+\subsection{Document-specific vs. site-specific settings}
+\label{sec:docum-spec-vs}
+
+\subsection{A survey of candidate files in TeX Live}
+\label{sec:surv-cand-files}
+
+\section{Should we use the \var{TEXMFSYSCONFIG} tree?}
+\label{sec:should-we-use}
+
+This question can be divided in two parts:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item Should \pkg{tex-common} provide support for the
+  \var{TEXMFSYSCONFIG} tree?
+\item Should configuration files of the Basic \TeX{} Packages, or of
+  any \TeX{} package, be installed in this tree?  Or instead, should
+  they be installed in a subdirectory
+  \file{/etc/texmf/}\pkg{<package>}, with symlinks from the
+  \var{TEXMFDIST} or \var{TEXMFMAIN} trees pointing to them?
+\end{enumerate}
+
+The first questions seems to be settled and undisputed, the answer is
+``yes''.  The second one is currently under debate.  However, the
+reasons given in earlier discussions for supporting
+\var{TEXMFSYSCONFIG} also affect the decision about using it.
+
+\subsection{Reasons for supporting \var{TEXMFSYSCONFIG}}
+\label{sec:reasons-supporting-}
+
+\subsection{Arguments for per-package directories and symlinks}
+\label{sec:argum-per-pack}
+
+\subsection{Arguments for installing conffilesin TEXMFSYSCONFIG}
+\label{sec:argum-inst-conff}
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+\end{document}
+
+%%% Local Variables: 
+%%% mode: latex
+%%% TeX-master: t
+%%% End: