The problem reported in bug #127377 for tetex-dvips is back for texlive-texmf-dvips. Every time I upgrade the RPM, my /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps is blown away and I need to replace it. I'm pretty sure it should be %config(noreplace).
Fixed in rawhide.
Please, don't fix it. You should just put the dvips/config/config.ps file in /etc/texmf. It is where local configuration goes, /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps is for vendor configuration file.
But then how will we know when changes are made to the standard config.ps that we might want to incorporate into our customized one? If the standard one is treated as %config(noreplace), then when changes are made, RPM or yum will warn about the .rpmsave file. Otherwise, we'll never know when config.ps is enhanced in a way we care about.
If it is %config(noreplace) and you didn't modified it, a .rpmsave won't be created. Anyway I understand what you are asking for, but unless I am wrong, this is not the intended use of %config(noreplace). It seems to me that this is used for files that are supposed to be edited by the user, such that the changes done by the user are not overwritten, and it is not the case for usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps. So %config(noreplace) is not intended as a mean to detect that a file changed. It seems to me that you are 'abusing' the use case of %config(noreplace) (though, once again, your 'abuse' makes sense). Therefore I really think that it shouldn't be %config(noreplace), though I am not sure about how you should handle this issue. Well, I have some ideas (do a rpm and yum wrapper that register the md5sum of a list of files before running, for example), but not within rpm/yum.
Files in /usr marked %config are usually frowned upon, config files belong to /etc if possible.
Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This message is a reminder that Fedora 9 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 9. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '9'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 9's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 9 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
config.ps is now in /var/lib/texmf/dvips/config, not /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config, which means that the objections above to making it a config file and the statement that it should be moved to /etc/texmf are no longer correct. Ergo, this is still a bug, so I'm moving the version to rawhide.
(In reply to comment #8) > config.ps is now in /var/lib/texmf/dvips/config, not > /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config, which means that the objections above to making > it a config file Unless I am missing something, files in /var/lib/texmf/dvips/config should never ever be config files. > and the statement that it should be moved to /etc/texmf are no > longer correct. I didn't told that the config file from the package should be moved to /etc/texmf, but that the config file you did should be in /etc/texmf.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 12 development cycle. Changing version to '12'. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
This message is a reminder that Fedora 12 is nearing its end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 12. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '12'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 12's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 12 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug to the applicable version. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 12 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-12-02. Fedora 12 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.
This is still broken. There are now two config.ps files /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps and /var/lib/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps. It's not clear why there are two. Inexplicably, the one in /usr is marked as a config file and the one in /var isn't. This makes no sense. The definition of /usr vs. /var is that files in /usr are supposed to be constant (i.e., not modified by the user) whereas files in /var are supposed to be modifiable. Therefore, if anything, the one in /usr should *not* be marked a config file and the one in /var *should be*. I really don't understand what Patrice Dumas means about /var being the wrong place for files marked %config. A quick search reveals at least 67 files in /var on my system that are marked %config.
texlive-2012-3.20121019_r28030.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/texlive-2012-3.20121019_r28030.fc18
Package texlive-2012-3.20121019_r28030.fc18, PyX-0.11.1-4.fc18, evince-3.6.1-2.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing texlive-2012-3.20121019_r28030.fc18 PyX-0.11.1-4.fc18 evince-3.6.1-2.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-16563/PyX-0.11.1-4.fc18,evince-3.6.1-2.fc18,texlive-2012-3.20121019_r28030.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback).