Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/11/10/10:45:31
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Eli wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, RJ vd Boon wrote:
> > I've read it completely (twice), I only didn't notice any word like:
> > "by default the TEXMF and TEXMF/fonts are read-only" It might be
> > usefull to cut and paste the little explenation to TeX.README.
> As far as I see, the only thing that the README doesn't say is that these
> directories already come write-protected; every other aspect of this
> feature is described in detail.
Well, OK. (I don't know the readme by heart...)
You also said in your previous reply that I should add my new tree to
the TEXMF variable (which I just deleted from djgpp.env, according to
the readme) or add it to TEXMFLOCAL. That's what I wanted in the
README, but as I now think, it also is/should be described in the
docs, so the readme isn't exactly the place to put it. (`it' and
`that' refer to the variables)
> Is the comment on the default setup what you lack? If so, I didn't
Yes, that's what i lacked.
> describe that on purpose: some (most?) unzippers ignore the read-only bit
> and unzip the directories without it (which unzip program did you use,
> btw?).
Info-Zip's unzip, version 5.32 (and about to upgrade to 5.33j(beta))
So if I understand right, it doesn't help setting the RO-bit for some
unzippers and for others it does. This creates (IMHO) an inconsistent
situation between different users, and even for a user[1] who
sometimes unzips in a DOS-box (with infozip), sometimes with wincmd,
and sometimes from nortoncommander, which give different situations,
which I think was never your intention.
[1] like I ;-)
> So I didn't want to lie about the default being magically
> arranged; instead I told that *if* you want that setup, you need to
> actually set the attribute manually.
Which I understood as: "The normal behaviour is a tree which is not
write-protected". (i.e. I read *if* as: if and only if)
Also a quote from TeX.README:
The generated fonts will by default be installed inside the
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
share/texmf tree, where they will be available for future use by
the package programs. However, you might want the generated fonts
^^^^^^^^^^
to go to a different hierarchy, for example if you'd like to purge
those files from time to time (to preserve disk space). If the
share/texmf tree is on write-protected media (e.g. CD-ROM), mktex*
programs will do that automatically; if not, you will need to set
the read-only bit of share/texmf and share/texmf/fonts, like this:
This led me to believe that the read-only attribute by default is NOT
set.
A note about the default _in_ the .zip and the behaviour of some
unzippers would be something to consider. Or changing the default;-)
> I figured that setting it twice would be a lesser evil than telling
> it is already set when it might not be so. I also thought that those
> who add additional fonts usually know better what they are doing
> (like you did) and will be able to figure it out on their own.
That's completely true.
> I'm open to suggestions about how to fix all this mess in a better way.
Hmm, this shows that some messy things are just messy.
bye now,
Robert
PS I also noticed that you have ported dviljk-2.6 and not 2.8. I also
noticed that 2.8 is mainly 2.6 + a little bugfix in tfm.c + DJGPP
support-files. Wouldn't it be wise to use 2.8 with DJGPP? Or should
I just compile and try it myself (and upload if stable)?
--
rjvdboon AT cs DOT vu DOT nl | "En dat is niet waar!" sprak ex-Staatsecretaris-
www.cs.vu.nl/~rjvdboon | van-Onderwijs Netelenbos fel.
- Raw text -