On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 07:42:50AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Di, 20 Apr 2010, Bill Gatliff wrote: > > I too am affected by this bug. Thanks! > > Not until someone checks with up-upstream and contacts *not* the TeX Live > Team, but the orginal author. >
Done (see attached). The current maintainer says this does seem to be a bug. But his time is limited :^( Does anyone from the TeX Live team have the spare cycles to look into this? (Sigh, who am I kidding, no one has spare cycles now days...) -- Keith Hellman #include <disclaimer.h> [email protected] from disclaimer import standard [email protected] -*- public key @ pgp.mit.edu 9FCF40FD Y!M: mcprogramming AIM/ICQ: 485403897 gtalk (xmpp jabber): [email protected], [email protected] -*- "Wit ought to be a glorious treat, like caviar. Never spread it about like marmalade." -- Noel Coward
From [email protected] Fri May 21 23:14:42 2010 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.0 (2010-01-18) on doberman.l.localdomain X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,URIBL_BLACK,URIBL_RED autolearn=no version=3.3.0 Received: from mail.webfaction.com by doberman.l.localdomain with POP3 (fetchmail-6.3.13) for <khell...@localhost> (single-drop); Fri, 21 May 2010 23:14:42 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx8.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFA11C4022D for <[email protected]>; Fri, 21 May 2010 23:54:04 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mx8.webfaction.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail8.webfaction.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sSPbqC+7NXzV for <[email protected]>; Fri, 21 May 2010 23:54:03 -0500 (CDT) Received: from mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net (mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net [69.17.117.49]) by mx8.webfaction.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29858C4021F for <[email protected]>; Fri, 21 May 2010 23:54:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: (qmail 2547 invoked from network); 22 May 2010 04:54:01 -0000 Received: from dsl081-073-035.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net (HELO grimoire.dpdx.net) (bmo...@[64.81.73.35]) (envelope-sender <[email protected]>) by mail5.sea5.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <[email protected]>; 22 May 2010 04:54:01 -0000 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 21:54:04 -0700 To: [email protected] From: Brooks Moses <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Latest version of the LaTeX listings package... In-Reply-To: <[email protected]> References: <[email protected]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Message-Id: <[email protected]> Status: RO Content-Length: 3588 Lines: 95 Keith - Thanks for your kind words! Although they are unfortunately not as deserved as I would hope; I have sadly been unable to keep up with the bug reports for a while now, and am trying to find time to transition it either to another maintainer or to a more community mode of maintenance. In any case, I would agree with you that this is a bug in 1.4 -- the "old" behavior you describe seems like the obvious thing to do, and additionally maintaining backwards compatibility has also been a high priority. Further, reading the text quoted in Norbert Preining's reply, "auto lets the package choose the first number: ... a stand alone file begins with the number corresponding to the first input line." That, to me, quite clearly indicates that, if the first input line is (as in your example) line 37, the the numbering should start with 37 -- the number corresponding to that line -- by default. (The line-numbering code is especially convoluted and brittle, and gets more than its share of bug reports -- some, such as no doubt this one, coming from side effects of my fixes for other bugs. And, of course, the code didn't come with a test suite.) I appreciate your relaying this as appropriate. - Brooks At 10:08 AM 5/21/2010, Keith Hellman wrote: >Brooks: > >First, thank-you for taking over the maintenance of the LaTeX >listings. I, and I'm sure many, many, others consider it a *critical* >component of our lecturing success in computer science. > >There has been a bug filed against the listings package in the Debian >repository: > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=569576 > >The TeX live team seems to think (rather I should say the only member >who has weighed in on the subject, [email protected]) seems to think >that this is not a bug, and in fact reflects the expected output of the >package. > >My experience (and apparently several others) is that this is not the >way the package worked in previous versions (<=1.3). > >So, I'm wondering: > > A. Has previous incarnations of the package not been correct? > > B. Or is this a bug in 1.4? > >Certainly, both could be the case if backwards-compatibility is >a big concern. > >My only thought is that (A) allows the author of a document to specify >less redundant information. For instance, I frequently post my example >source for students, but highlight specific portions of it during >lecture. In which case I used to be able to do: > > \lstinputlisting[firstline=37,lastline=45]{sample.cxx} > >and the line-numbers in the slide matched the source line numbers. In >the current version (1.4), I have to have: > > \lstinputlisting[firstline=37,lastline=45,firstnumber=37]{sample.cxx} > >Which creates a bit of a input and maintenance headache when sample.cxx >changes (two numbers to edit as opposed to one). > >Can you help clarify the state of affairs for the TeX Live team and the >debian distro? I'm happy to forward your response, if it is easier to >simply reply to me. > >Thanks for your time and continued support of listings, > >-- >Keith Hellman #include <disclaimer.h> >[email protected] from disclaimer import standard >[email protected] > -*- > public key @ pgp.mit.edu 9FCF40FD > Y!M: mcprogramming AIM/ICQ: 485403897 > gtalk (xmpp jabber): [email protected], > [email protected] > -*- > >"Every man knows he is a sissy compared to Johnny Cash." > >-- Bono (U2) >
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
