On 15.08.04 Osamu Aoki ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 19:51:31 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Hi *, > > > Transcript written on pdflatex.log. > > > fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.fmt installed. > > > (Fatal format file error; I'm stymied) > > > debiandoc2latexpdf: ERROR: reference.en.pdf could not be generated > > > properly > > > make[1]: *** [reference.en.pdf] Error 1 > > > > > > I assume this has to do with the recent changes to tetex-bin, but I'm not > > > really sure. > > Sigh :-( I am wondering how TeX/LaTeX folks feel about RC bugs on > documentation packages due to recent TeX/LaTeX package situation. > Look at Bug #265247 (or #265247), #265611, #264394, #263840, ... it > ain't pretty sight. > Nope. Sorry for that! I guess, this is still the jadetex story (didn't have a look at the bug logs). We didn't know, that jadetex insists on having (pdf)latex.fmt generated, which was not done in tetex 2.0.2-17. > I do not feel like adding build script hack now to package just to > get away for FTBFS serious bug unless TeX/LaTeX is stabilized. If > anyone care to file a RC bug on Documentation package which build > correctly in relatively recent testing and stable version of > TeX/LaTeX, I think it is TeX/LaTeX important bug and it should be > solved THERE. > If you speak about the jadetex story: It is fixed! Unfortunately the upload was done with urgency low, so the broken version will stay in testing for a while. But that shouldn't hurt the auto-builders. > If people keep insisting these TeX/LaTeX caused FTBFS as RC, it only > force package to ship without PS/PDF. No one gain. > ACK. > I know TeX/LaTeX has been quite actively updated. IMHO, it should > be very stable when FREEZE starts. But reality is not. If you > think about TeX/LateX, it is like GCC for C program. We should not > make major change with incompatibility at this late moment. But it > happened. > It was stable! From our view it was nothing more than a design decision to use e-TeX instead of Knuth TeX. We didn't know, that it could break things. Reason: Since February 2003 people are urged to do exactly that. It will be the default in teTeX 3.0, which won't go into sarge. As we were afraid, that stable users are behind the time until 2006 or later (release of etch) we decided to do the switch. They will be pissed of anyway, cause the teTeX in sarge is already now more than 1,5 years old. I'd rather would have seen an teTeX 2.1.0 at the beginning/middle of 2004, but I'm not TE. Exchanging parts of the texmf-tree could cause more severe failures than the above. > If anyone insists this to be RC, I will reassign this to TeX/LateX > but people there seems handful with similar reports and such an big > example file like this package is tough one to track the bugs. > > So, I am making this a "wishlist" for now and I will close this one if > latest unstable environment build OK. > I'll have a look at the bugs to see, what you're really speaking about. > (I CC this to debian-doc so other doc maintainer will e aware of.) > > On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 11:07:47PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: > > Looks like it. Changing bin/debiandoc2latexpdf's "pdflatex" call to a > > "pdfelatex" one seems to be a workaround. > > If new "pdfelatex" is needed, why this was not offered as an > alternative of pdflatex so it does not break build script. Is this > already fix? This looks like one of etex transition issue withing > TeX/LateX. > H. -- We're all looking for a woman who can sit in a mini-skirt and talk philosophy, executing both with confidence and style. http://hilmarpreusse.forum-rheinland.de/
