Re: [AUCTeX-devel] Re: Anything missing for 0.9.2?

[Ralf Angeli]

* David Kastrup (2005-04-08) writes:

> Ralf Angeli <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> I haven't really looked at the meaning of all the variables involved,
>> but what about adding '${datadir}/texmf-local' to the front of
>>
>> '${datadir}/texmf' "${texprefix}/share/texmf-local"
>> "${texprefix}/share/texmf" "${texprefix}/texmf-local"
>> "${texprefix}/texmf"
>>
>> ?
>
> But I don't want a system installation for RedHat with --prefix=/usr
> to go into texmf-local.  If FreeBSD Ports is incapable of providing
> different trees in a consistent way for stuff under package and under
> user control, there is no sense in pretending differently and breaking
> all architectures that are capable of making the difference.

Due to package systems like the ports collection or pkgsrc putting
their stuff into /usr/local, there are some users doing manual
installs into /opt or /usr2.  Oh well, it probably isn't the worst
decision to handle installations in /usr/local like manual
installations regardless of the system.

>> In the end texmf-local stands somewhat orthogonal to the distinction
>> of /usr/local being managed by the user and /usr by the package
>> management system.  In some sense, /usr/share/texmf-local is still
>> under the control of package management.
>
> Nope.  Really not.  On those systems that tend to have this directory,
> it is completely under site control.  Never seen it differently
> anywhere.  It gets created and searched and has its ls-R updated, but
> that's it with regard to system access.

As long as it does not wipe the directory from the hard disk upon
uninstalling the package.  Granted, this would be a bug in the package
then.

-- 
Ralf