Re: [PATCH] texdoc and xdvi (Re: [Q] gzipped documentations)

[Olaf Weber]

Sebastian Rahtz writes:
 Olaf Weber writes:

 Attached patch works with those lines in texmf.cnf:
   TEXDOCSSUFFIX = :.dvi:.ps:.html:.txt
   TEXDOCSCOMPRESS = :.gz:.bz2:.zip:.Z
   TEXDOCEXT = {$TEXDOCSSUFFIX}{$TEXDOCSCOMPRESS}

 texmf.cnf should not be abused as general-purpose info system. Several
 things which used to be in texmf.cnf for some time have been moved
 to mktex.cnf. This was a good thing.

 For what it's worth, I'd like to clean it up some more, and restrict
 texmf.cnf to path information, while other program parameters go to
 something like web2c.cnf.

 Can you or Thomas expound a bit on this? What is wrong with texmf.cnf
 having all sorts of stuff, a Single Stop Shop?

There is my sense of neatness (which is something where tastes
definitely differ).  But for example, an upgrade may have to replace
the texmf.cnf.  The path information part is usually the one with most
local adaptations, so this would make it easier to keep that in place.

-- 
Olaf Weber

Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
for they are quick to anger and have no need for subtlety.

regarding texinfo...

[Walter Tautz [MFCF]]

On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, David Kastrup wrote:

Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:30:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "Walter Tautz [MFCF]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
at the end? if one views the documentation under doc/programs
for example. Latex files usually have the table
of contents towards the beginning. I must confess I ALWAYS
see this all the texinfo stuff. Is there an options that
one has to set in the source?? Is this a deliberate design
of the texinfo macros? Very annoying. If one prints single sided
it isn't a problem. Just expressing a pet peeve that i have noticed
for many years. 
 
 First, what connection has this question with this mailing list which
 is for discussing specific aspects of the specific teTeX distribution?
 

It does if the documentation that is placed into the documentation directory
is structured in such a way that for the majority of general naive users pages
he or she expects are in the front are inexplicably at the back. It is true 
that in some french texts that is this is normal.

I suppose that Thomas can't be held responsible for any perceived deficiencies
in packages he builds tetex from, however, as such he could perhaps have
sent a note to the texinfo maintainers as I hardly think I'm the first
one to notice this phenomena. I certainly didn't intend to mean any
disrespect--keep up the good work Thomas. 

I should have phrased my complaint in the context of tetex more directly. 

I'll look into sending a note to the texinfo macros.