Date: Mon, 31 May 1999 09:32:21 -0500 (CDT) From: Jay Nelson <jdn@acp.qiv.com> To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Sorry, found it explained during jadetex installation Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.9905310843570.428-100000@acp.qiv.com> In-Reply-To: <19990531072441.A55361@titan.klemm.gtn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 31 May 1999, Andreas Klemm wrote: [snip] >If people use the metaport, then it should be evident, that jadetex >is primary used for the document project and then the automatic >tuning should be of greater value, than for people, that only want >to use jadetex, with possibly other goals than translating doc >from the document project ? > >Could we agree on that ? On the whole, yes, we can agree. My heartburn with this is that I believe it's bad form for an application to alter another without explicit agreement. That said, this may work: Add a variable to the make file that must be set, e.g., MODIFY_TEXMF similar the the USA_RESIDENT variable for the encryption ports. If not set, the make file will fail in the beginning when the user is paying attention. With a short description of the changes to be made, the user can make an informed decision. The changes should probably be additions like "hash_extra.jadetex=50000", although if the user agreed, it isn't necessary. I haven't played with that form of option much, but they appear to work as advertised. It would also be good form to back up the original configuration and delete the word "original" from the modified file. -- Jay To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.9905310843570.428-100000>