Open Problems

[Joachim Schrod]

Thomas wrote:
> 
> >  -- One must not use texmf/tex// as search path, due to duplicate
> >     files. TEXINPUTS must be set for each format anew. (There may be
> >     reasonable defaults, but eventually that's the bottom line.)
> >     [Paul Vojta]
> 
> I do not understand what the problem is. Or, are there systems where
> setting up different search paths are difficult? Or, is the problem
> that this is not yet properly explained in the current draft?

The latter. The draft gives the impression as if texmf/tex// might be
a good (i.e., valid) TEXINPUTS path. That's not true, filenames are
only unique over the trees tex/{<format>,generic}/. Come to think of
it, perhaps this should be added as an explicit requirement.

> >  -- PK files not generated by MF go in
> > 	fonts/pk/modeless/<utility>/dpi<dpi>/<font>.pk
> >     [Joachim & Karl]
> 
> Hm... No supplier/typeface part? Another thing: I do not like that
> the files of the same type (e.g. .pk files) are stored at different
> directory levels. If you compare
>   fonts/pk/cx/public/cm/dpi300/cmr10.pk		# 6 dir. levels
> with
>   fonts/pk/modeless/gsftopk/dpi300/ptmr8r.pk    # 5 dir. levels
>   fonts/pk/modeless/gsftopk/adobe/times/dpi300/ptmr8r.pk  # 7 dir. levels
> then the modeless are always off by one...

Yep, I got that wrong.
   `fonts/pk/<utility>/<supplier>/<typeface>/dpi<dpi>/<font>.pk'
(or, alternatively, `.../<font>.<dpi>pk') was the last state of
discussion.

Basic point: The draft doesn't cover PK fonts not created by MF that
don't have a concept of modes.

> >  -- Where are binaries placed?
> >      o  Non-Unix folks don't like bin/<platform>/.
> 
> And UNIX folks do not like fonts/type ... :-) In my opinion, binaries
> info pages and manpages should be keep out of the draft. Maybe a
> recommendation where to put them, but it should be clear that these
> could be outside the texmf tree, too.

In case I wasn't clear enough: That's (almost) exactly my point. Move
the whole stuff to an appendix where we express our disagreement and
announce that we have to wait for further experiences.


To mention another (new) point: It isn't clear to me if the sentence
`emtex/texmf/ is wrong' is good. In contrary, I think it doesn't
capture the CD situation at all. E.g., _I_ would organize a
Unix-centric CD this way:

	<mount point>/{bin,lib,texmf}/

(perhaps with a $PLATFORM somewhere in between), and I'd bet that
most people would use a directory name as the mount point that has
the `product' in it. I.e., they yield something like
/opt/unixtex/texmf/. (That may even lead to a directory
/opt/unixtex/texmf/unixtex/.) Your mileage may vary.

	Joachim

--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod			Email: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de
Computer Science Department
Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany