[tex-live] Solved: the preforce problem I had. Request

Gerben Wierda Gerben.Wierda at rna.nl
Sun Feb 8 21:49:03 CET 2004

On Feb 8, 2004, at 18:43, Olaf Weber wrote:

> Actually, I'd like to be able to have the texmf.cnf distributed with
> the texmf tree, instead of carrying the texmf.in in the kpathsea tree.

If stuff like kpathsea changes (like now), or if stuff like memory 
requirements would change it has consequences for texmf.cnf. But if the 
TDS changes, it also has consequences for texmf.cnf.

This raises the important question: what exactly is texmf.cnf for? You 
need to define that pretty clearly before you make a decision if it 
should be part of Build or Master. At least one part (the organisation 
of multiple trees) lies outside Master. But currently, the actual 
settings in texmf.cnf also depend on the actual layout inside the texmf 
trees (TDS).

Probably, technically this would lead to a split: one file describing 
stuff like TEXMF, TEXMFMAIN etc, or the *outside* of the tree (and that 
alone makes shipping it as part of one tree a bit of a conflict) and 
one file describing the *inside* of the tree (sub(sub)directories, like 
tex, fonts, enc, map). But should it for instance be possible that 
different trees have different directory structures? Is that a 
felxibility worth paying  the hefty implementation price for? I guess 
not. In that case, the trees should conform on the inside to the 
standard structure (which is now undergoing a change) and thus the only 
part flexible would be the outside of the trees and that would point to 
a choice as part of the binaries.

Given that this is the time we are doing it and a changeover is costly 
for users, it should better be done good.


More information about the tex-live mailing list