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