Fri, 20 Oct 1995 23:17:54 +0100
> At least the teTeX distribution contains a couple of sample config
> files to help people get going without much fuss and I think it's
> good that they are collected in one place in a config/ directory.
> They should go somewhere else. If a distribution supplies them, they're
> a distribution file, not a locally-created file!
Eek. config is such a nice name. And nothing in the name indicates that
I should not put files into the config directory.
> I'm confused about the whole thing. Do graphics and babel *require* a
> config file, and yet do not supply a decent generic one to start from?
> I'm guessing they're like LaTeX, and supply a config file a site can
> change or not, and tetex does ... what?
Well, I think the graphics package does not work if no driver is specified.
And in the config file, I specify dvips as driver for the graphics bundle.
This is a reasonable default IMO.
> As long as the config files are locally generated, they should be
> placed in config/. (All of them: It's a Good Thing to know what one
> has changed in distributions.)
> I agree.
Maybe, I have missed some arguments (too much email in the moment). What is
the argument against a local directory?
> If one adds an explicit hint to local/ that this is the place to
> store site-specific (adapted) configuration files, dropping config/
> is fine with me.
So, why can't we just go like this: I put teTeX's config files to
config and the site-specific files may go into local?