Re: teTeX and TeX Live interoperability
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 18:26 +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:01:49PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
> > Namewise, I'd rather say /usr/share/texmf is TEXMFMAIN, and
> > /usr/share/texmf-teTeX is TEXMFDIST_TETEX.
ACK. TEXMFMAIN and TEXMFDIST would probably be best.
> There might still be a
> > problem with the order of trees: In upstream teTex, it is
> >
> > ...,!!$TEXMFMAIN,!!$TEXMFLOCAL,!!$TEXMFDIST
> >
> > But in order for TEXMFLOCAL to be able to shadow files installed with a
> > Debian package, either Debian packages have to install in one of the
> > TEXMFDIST trees, or we must keep on swapping MAIN and LOCAL.
I would prefer the latter approach.
> Several comments:
>
> (1) Order is important: which of teTeX and texlive do we wish to take
> precedence? Most relevant is probably: which is more likely to be
> more recent?
In most cases, I would expect TeX Live to be more recent. From that
point of view, searching the TeX Live tree before the teTeX tree would
make sense. However, one could also use a more conservative approach, in
which TeX Live is only used to provide additional files for teTeX, not
for updating files in teTeX.
> This could be a debconf question, but then that would likely mess
> up config file handling :/. Maybe just go with a default with
> instructions on how to change it, or a debconf note, or - I don't
> know what!
>
> (2) Use of TEXMFDIST
>
> (Incidentally, why have we got TEXMFDIST=$TEXMFMAIN in our default
> texmf.cnf? That might cause two lookups if a file isn't in
> TEXMFMAIN. Why not just comment it out everywhere it appears, and
> list those variables which will need to be changed if TEXMFDIST is
> set?)
Good question.
> We can't call a variable TEXMFDIST_TETEX, as _ has a special
> meaning, but we could call it TEXMFDISTTETEX, TEXMFDISTTEXLIVE.
>
> Easier, though, would simply be
> TEXMFDIST=/usr/share/{texmf-teTeX,texmf-texlive}
> or
> TEXMFDIST=/usr/share/{texmf-texlive,texmf-teTeX}
That looks pretty good.
> (3) We shouldn't be touching TEXMFLOCAL! That's for local sysadmins
> to do (/usr/local/share/texmf is not under Debian control, as per
> FHS).
ACK.
Meanwhile, I have found one problem with this approach. Even if we would
separate the TEXMF trees, there would still be the configfiles installed
in /etc/texmf. Not sure what would be a good strategie for overlaps
among those files.
cheerio
ralf
Reply to: