Now my understanding is; the new mechanism might be okay if it first checks whether texmf.cnf is an admin's file or a file generated by update-texmf before generating texmf.cnf and overwrites it only in the case it was a file generated by the script (for example, with the way of update-modules).
Is this right? Well, I had an impression from the prases like; From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:21:17 -0500 > I am sorry, I do think that not preserving user changes is not > an advancement. or From: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#189370: acknowledged by developer (irrelevant) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 20:52:43 -0500 > Excellent? Dumping user changes is excellent? I think I would > prefer a less gee-which flashy scheme that actually followed polciy. that you denied the new mechanism in the whole so I tried to explain why it was necessary for entire TeX system. If you said something like; it might be okay ONLY IF it checks first if texmf.cnf was generated one or not before overwriting it, (I'm not completely sure that this is really your intention, though) then I could get your point soon... # Communication with English is indeed difficult for me. # I hope my understanding is correct now. Thanks, 2003-4-24(Thu) -- Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.