Hi Werner, I tend to agree with Reinhard on this. I have been using Unix and then Linux for many years now since the eighties. It always used to be well established in the Unix world that major packages such as tetex is, and like Interleaf TPS, SAS, and other much used packages, were installed on a server and exported in the way tetex can be today. This meant that we could have several different versions of each package, and just use a simple setup script to mount the required version of whichever package.
It is the FHS and LSB which are at fault here because they do not define a suitable sharing point for such packages. If you cannot use /usr/share because /usr must be able to be mounted as read-only, then why not define a /share or /packages tree which can be mounted from another volume, containing such coherant package structures so they can be mounted according to whichever version is required without clashing with other installed versions? Don't change tetex and other important and well established packages. Tetex (and Thomas Esser) should have the freedom for ergonomic design, and should not be forced to be restricted in usability. Change the FHS instead. The FHS should have been designed to accommodate such uses in the first place. The whole point of Unix and Linux is usability. If you restrict the usability in the way the FHS does today, then you damage the creative freedom of these systems. Helen McCall ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Dr. Werner Fink wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:54:26PM +0100, Reinhard Kotucha wrote: > > >>>>> "Werner" == Werner Fink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > It would be a great win if teTeX would fulfill the FHS[1], in > > > short all configuration should be placed in /etc/texmf/, all > > > [...] > > > > Hi Werner, > > Hi Reinhard, > > > one feature of teTeX is that you can put it on one machine into one > > directory, and mount this directory on an other machine anywhere else. > > This requires that all needed files are in the nfs mounted tree. > > I know and this is the reason of having written the teTeX nfs script > to be able to export the texmf structure even with /etc/texmf/ and > /var/lib/texmf/. > > > This also means that there shouldn't be any paths compiled into the > > binaries. The config file and the texmf tree are searched for in a > > directory relative to the directory where the binaries are. > > > > So the only thing you have to do is to put the latter into $PATH. > > > > Of course, it is good if a Linux distribution complies with the FHS, > > but in this case it's better to leave it as it is. > > This would break LSB, we can not do that. The only thing I'd like > to see is a configuration where I can > > > > > What you can do is to make /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf a symlink pointing to > > the real file. Then it's at least easier to remember where the config > > filen is. > > Sorry all data provided at /usr/ should be handled as read only > data. This because FHS requires that /usr can mounted read only. > > Here at SuSE I'm doing it the other way. All configuration > data go to /etc/texmf/ and all variable data go to /var/lib/texmf/. > Then I'm using symbolic links pointing to the old location of those > data files and directories. Clearly the compiled in configuration > and the /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf reflecting _both_ locations. > > > > Though you could provide symlinks to other config files as well > > (updmap.cnf, fmtutil.cnf), in my opinion it's better to convince people > > to use the program texconfig instead. > > > > SuSE installs teTeX locally on each machine but in certain > > circumstances it is not bad to put it on a server and export it for > > nfs. In this case you'll like teTeX as it is. > > Hmmm ... the package te_nfs provides a script tetex-import > together with a README for importing the full teTeX structure > from a teTeX server. Clearly this package conflicts with all > other teTeX packages. > > > > teTeX is a distribution for UNIX, not only for Linux. If it does not > > have a negative impact on other UNIX systems I agree with you that > > at least the files which do not have to be inside the teTeX tree (for > > instance $VARFONTS) go into a directory complying with the FHS. > > FHS is not only for Linux ;^) > All what I'd like to see is the possiblity to run a configure > script with the appropiate FHS scheme instead of doing all > in a huge RPM spec file and without patching ;^) > > Werner > > -- > "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having > a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr >
