Re: /etc/profile.d/lilypond.sh is a bad idea

[Reuben Thomas]

> Yes, and separate scripts for xdvi, dvips, kdvi, gdvi, texi2dvi?  I
> don't think that this is a good approach.

Need it be scripts? Can't you just make a system call with the TEXMF shell
variable prepended, i.e.

TEXMF=blah <program-and-args>

> We explicitly put the version number in, to prevent lilypond from
> accidentallyr reading files from old versions, esp. when people update
> by hand.

Fair enough.

> > Perhaps best of all would simply be to install your stuff in TEXMF_LOCAL
> > (if it exists) and otherwise TEXMF. I'm happy to help with getting this
> > working if you think it's a good idea.
>
> Is there a standardized procedure for this?

I don't know, and it doesn't look like it. tetex is pretty monolithic. In
this particular case the problem was that the location (in fact the very
existence) of TEXLOCAL changed as a result of going from Fedora packages
to ATRPMs packages. But the general principle of having it work across
lilypond and tetex upgrades still stands.

I think the best solution for the RPM is to store files directly in
/usr/share/texmf, and for user installs in a TEXLOCAL or TEXHOME tree.
lilypond.sh could remain as an option for those who wanted to install
everything under a lilypond directory.

-- 
http://www.mupsych.org/~rrt/ | free, a.  already paid for (Peyton Jones)