Junichi Uekawa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > >> > Running INITEX=einitex ... ./checkconfig: line 115: einitex: command not >> > found >> > >> > *** Error: >> > >> > Command failed: >> > >> > einitex '&latex' dummy > initex.log && [ -f dummy.$FMT ] >> > >> > einitex seems to have problems building format latex for latex >> > It could be a problem with einitex, format extension efmt, >> > or the initial latex.efmt may not be availableb. >> > See initex.log >> >> Yikes. >> This will need investigation, thanks. > > > whizzytex users reported that tetex no longer etex. > I've not quite investigated the problem; but I would like > to check the intention. > > Is the intention to remove 'etex' 'einitex' commands? > > From the 'NEWS' file, it looks like 'pdfetex' is the default now, > so invoking pdfeinitex would be the right option?
Atsuhito has already answered the main points. I've just had a look at the whizzytex sources, and I found some other possible problems. First of all, I wonder when initex (or now, pdftex -ini) is used at all. Usually formats should be generated in the postinst script, and they should be defined by fmtutil.cnf snippets in /etc/texmf/fmt.d/. This way it is guaranteed that, if there are changes in tetex-* that require all formats to be rebuilt, this will be done in tetex-bin's postinst. Second, whizzytex hardcodes the extension for the format that is generated. However, this is subject to change, too; and if you use the fmtutil.cnf mechanism, you need not specify it. We are currently introducing a Debian TeX Policy; the current draft is available in the tex-common package. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer