Your message dated Mon, 5 May 2008 12:36:11 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line latex-ucs has been removed from Debian, closing #303752
has caused the Debian Bug report #303752,
regarding missing symbol WHITE SQUARE WITH ROUNDED CORNERS
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
immediately.)
--
303752: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=303752
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: latex-ucs
Version: 20040307-2
Severity: normal
I haven't figured out how to file a bug upstream with the LaTeX-UCS
maintainers, as many of the information on the net seems to be outdated
as to who runs the project. So I'm filing this here in the hopes that
it can be forwarded appropriately.
Basically, when building a UTF-8 document LaTeX-UCS handles 0x229E
(\boxplus) and 0x229F (\boxminus) correctly if you use the amssymb
package, but cannot handle 0x25A2 (the box without anything inside).
The following workaround appears in all of my documents that use these
characters:
\DeclareUnicodeCharacter{9634}{$\square$}
This appears to work properly. Perhaps the UTF-8 character DB should be
updated.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=ja_JP.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages latex-ucs depends on:
ii tetex-bin 2.0.2-26 The teTeX binary files
-- no debconf information
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 20041017-8+rm
The latex-ucs package has been removed from Debian testing, unstable and
experimental, so I am now closing the bugs that were still opened
against it.
For more information about this package's removal, read
http://bugs.debian.org/458380 . That bug might give the reasons why
this package was removed, and suggestions of possible replacements.
Don't hesitate to reply to this mail if you have any question.
Thank you for your contribution to Debian.
--
Marco Rodrigues
http://Marco.Tondela.org
--- End Message ---
