[tex-live] Bug in updmap?!
Gerben Wierda
Gerben.Wierda at rna.nl
Fri Oct 29 14:11:05 CEST 2004
On 29 Oct 2004, at 13:57, Fabrice Popineau wrote:
>
>> I agree completely. updmap on Windows is a port of updmap on unix. The
>> fact that you have not ported it as is now suddenly means that I have
>> to rewrite and add to my stuff and that is a lot of work. Unless
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ??? Aren't you using Thomas script?
My system sits on top of TeX Live / teTeX and it shields the users from
the command line. Thus, I have written packages which contain perl
scripts. These packages are as robust as I can make them (given my
time) and thus will for instance not call updmap --enable without
having checked by running updmap --help and figuring out if --enable is
available. If it is not, I install an updated version. So far so good,
but some tools have changed between TL2003 and TL2004 in such a way
(fmtutil for instance) that I cannot just use the TL2004 version in an
(also supported) TL2003 setting. With new syntax added, I would have to
do a lot of rewriting supporting even more variants. My package already
has about 2000 lines of perl. And that is only the TeX i-Package.
>> Personally, I agree with Vladimir. You want a port of the updmap
>> too. Fine. You port the updmap tool. It is not that much work to parse
>> the options as updmap does it with perl, you just can't use getopt.
>
> As I already said: just do it.
Windows is not my area. I stay on Mac OS X and there I can use the unix
stuff. That you can't on Windows is too bad for Windows (and there is
more too bad for Windows, but I digress).
> Do you really know what you guys are doing?
>
> This year BachoTeX meeting ended up with a bunch of "recommendations"
> (call them the name you want) to make this project behave more
> correctly. That turned up into a major crisis. Unfortunately, it is not
> by ignoring problems that you solve them. They will just strike back.
>
> You talk about a lot of work. My guess is that you don't know what you
> are talking about.
Let's first get even: Given the fact that I have authored thousands and
probably tens of thousands of lines of perl, your guess is wrong. I
think you have no idea what my redistribution does.
Let's now get civilized again: these kind of comments do not help.
Calling each other dumb is not going to help.
> Most things that are input into TeXLive are without any
> prior
> discussion. Which means the day before releasing it, you see some
> script
> or some new program coming in and I should spend my time to
> be
> compatible with that?
>
> My position will be very clear: I give up unless someone can prove that
> this mess is going somewhere.
I don't care to much unless the syntax is going to change without
backward compatibility in which case I will be very pissed off. And I
can certify that parsing the command line options in your script
without getopt is a lot less work than me having to contend with yet
another variation that I have to shield from the user or pay the price
in an additional load of support questions from people who's scripts
suddenly have stopped working.
G
More information about the tex-live
mailing list