George N. White III gnwiii at gmail.com
Fri Nov 16 19:14:07 CET 2007

On Nov 15, 2007 11:25 PM, Nobuyuki Tsuchimura <tutimura at nn.iij4u.or.jp> wrote:

>   Hi all,
>   I can't understand why "$TEXMFMAIN" is given higher priority
> over "$TEXMFLOCAL" in the default definition of TEXMF in "texmf.in".
> http://tug.org/svn/texlive/trunk/Build/source/texk/kpathsea/texmf.in?view=markup
> I guess it's a simple typo since teTeX-3.0,
> because in other places "$TEXMFLOCAL" is given higher priority,
> like in a comment few lines above, and in the definition of SYSTEXMF.

This is a matter of taste/experience.  The difference only matters if
you have the same package in both
trees (name clashes are dangerous and need to be eliminated rather
than hidden).  Some sites take the view that new things go into
TEXMFLOCAL and will eventually appear in TEXMFMAIN, probably in an
updated version.   Since it is hard to keep up with changes, it is all
too easy to end up with old versions in TEXMFLOCAL, so this approach
means you get to be slack about cleaning out old cruft that has
accumulated in TEXMFLOCAL.

I tend to use TEXMFLOCAL for truly local site-specific things.  If I
need an updated version of a package that exists in TEXMFMAIN, I use a
TEXMFUPDATES tree (which is maintained using MiKTeX's package manager
so linux and Windows users see the same versions).   ConTeXt, which
updates often, gets a separate TEXMFCONT tree.

George N. White III <aa056 at chebucto.ns.ca>
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia

More information about the tex-live mailing list