Bug#1064918: tex-common postinst script fails due to a bug in lua script /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua
Control: affects -1 context,texlive-binaries Control: merge -1 1064402 On 06.03.2024 23:23, Preuße...@buxtehude.debian.org, Hilmar wrote: Control: severity -1 grave Control: reassign -1 luametatex Control: merge -1 1064402 Next try. H. -- sigfault OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1064918: tex-common postinst script fails due to a bug in lua script /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua
Control: affects -1 texlive-binaries,context Control: merge -1 1064402 On 06.03.2024 23:23, Preuße...@buxtehude.debian.org, Hilmar wrote: Control: severity -1 grave Control: reassign -1 luametatex Control: merge -1 1064402 Next try. H. -- sigfault OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1064918: tex-common postinst script fails due to a bug in lua script /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua
Control: severity -1 grave Control: reassign -1 luametatex Control: merge -1 1064402 On 27.02.2024 19:06, Giacomo Mulas wrote: Hi, after the latest standard "apt upgrade" I was left with an unconfigured tex-common, due to the following reported error: lua error : startup file: /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua:2438: attempt to assign to const variable 'i' I merge that bug to the luametatex's bug now. Hilmar -- sigfault OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1064918: tex-common postinst script fails due to a bug in lua script /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024, Preuße, Hilmar wrote: On 27.02.2024 19:06, Giacomo Mulas wrote: Hello Giacomo, Indeed, mtxrun.lua uses texlua, as an interpreter, and that is provided by texlive-binaries, which was also upgraded a couple of days ago. Gotcha! I downgraded texlive-binaries to the previous version, and now tex-common configures correctly. So, apparently, the upgrade of texlive-binaries from version 2023.20230311.66589-8+b1 to 2023.20230311.66589-9 broke the postinst script of tex-common, where it attempts to run mtxrun.lua. According to the actual knowledge (#1064402) the issue is caused by the (not very helpful) luametatex upgrade, which should have been targeted to experimental, as it belongs to the upcoming TL 2024 release. Please downgrade your luametatex to the version from testing (and put it on hold), then upgrading tl-bin should not be an issue. indeed that worked, luametatex version 2.10.08+ds-1+b1 + texlive-binaries version 2023.20230311.66589-8+b1 do not trigger the mtxrun.lua problem. But also luametatex version 2.11.01+ds-2_amd64 + texlive-binaries version 2023.20230311.66589-9 works. So I am not completely sure which one is the culprit. Anyway, from #1064402 it appears that there is actually a problem in the mtxrun.lua script. Quoting from Raphael Plasson's message in that bug report: "All the errors comes down to the modification of for loop variables inside the loop. I don't know much about lua, but this seems to be forbidden, for loop variables being seen as const." For some reason, this was not enforced previously, but it is now with the current versions of texlive-binaries and luametatex. So perhaps it would be worth fixing it anyway in mtxrun.lua? Should my bugreport and/or #1064402 be reassigned to context, which provides mtxrun.lua? Instead of just closing them? Thanks, bye Giacomo -- _ Giacomo Mulas _ INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Cagliari via della scienza 5 - 09047 Selargius (CA) tel. +39 070 71180255 mob. : +39 329 6603810 _ "every year keeps getting shorter, never seem to find the time plans that either come to naught, or half a page of scribbled lines the time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say" (Pink Floyd) _
Bug#1064918: tex-common postinst script fails due to a bug in lua script /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua
On 27.02.2024 19:06, Giacomo Mulas wrote: Hello Giacomo, Indeed, mtxrun.lua uses texlua, as an interpreter, and that is provided by texlive-binaries, which was also upgraded a couple of days ago. Gotcha! I downgraded texlive-binaries to the previous version, and now tex-common configures correctly. So, apparently, the upgrade of texlive-binaries from version 2023.20230311.66589-8+b1 to 2023.20230311.66589-9 broke the postinst script of tex-common, where it attempts to run mtxrun.lua. According to the actual knowledge (#1064402) the issue is caused by the (not very helpful) luametatex upgrade, which should have been targeted to experimental, as it belongs to the upcoming TL 2024 release. Please downgrade your luametatex to the version from testing (and put it on hold), then upgrading tl-bin should not be an issue. Hilmar -- sigfault OpenPGP_signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#1064918: tex-common postinst script fails due to a bug in lua script /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua
Package: tex-common Version: 6.18 Severity: important Dear Maintainer, after the latest standard "apt upgrade" I was left with an unconfigured tex-common, due to the following reported error: lua error : startup file: /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua:2438: attempt to assign to const variable 'i' I don't know exactly what caused this, since apparently tex-common was not modified by the upgrade, but something else triggered it to reconfigure. /usr/bin/mtxrun.lua is provided by the package context, which also was not upgraded very recently Most of the upgrade was gnu compilers 13 and 14. The packages that might have remotely something to do with tex-common could be auctex or maybe gnuplot? Anyway, I attach here the dpkg.log excerpt with the upgrade after which tex-common failed to configure. Regardless, I am not sure whether the bug was introduced by this latest update, or rather this upgrade simply made a preexisting bug apparent by triggering a tex-common configuration. Indeed, mtxrun.lua uses texlua, as an interpreter, and that is provided by texlive-binaries, which was also upgraded a couple of days ago. Gotcha! I downgraded texlive-binaries to the previous version, and now tex-common configures correctly. So, apparently, the upgrade of texlive-binaries from version 2023.20230311.66589-8+b1 to 2023.20230311.66589-9 broke the postinst script of tex-common, where it attempts to run mtxrun.lua. I hope this is enough information to nail and fix the bug, please let me know if I can help with further testing. Bye Giacomo P.S. here goes my latest dpkg.log: 2024-02-27 17:09:10 startup archives unpack 2024-02-27 17:09:12 upgrade dpkg:amd64 1.22.4 1.22.5 2024-02-27 17:09:12 status half-configured dpkg:amd64 1.22.4 2024-02-27 17:09:13 status unpacked dpkg:amd64 1.22.4 2024-02-27 17:09:13 status half-installed dpkg:amd64 1.22.4 2024-02-27 17:09:13 status triggers-pending man-db:amd64 2.12.0-3 2024-02-27 17:09:13 status unpacked dpkg:amd64 1.22.5 2024-02-27 17:09:14 startup packages configure 2024-02-27 17:09:14 configure dpkg:amd64 1.22.5 2024-02-27 17:09:14 status unpacked dpkg:amd64 1.22.5 2024-02-27 17:09:14 status half-configured dpkg:amd64 1.22.5 2024-02-27 17:09:14 status installed dpkg:amd64 1.22.5 2024-02-27 17:09:15 startup archives unpack 2024-02-27 17:09:17 upgrade zfs-initramfs:all 2.2.2-4 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:17 status triggers-pending initramfs-tools:all 0.142 2024-02-27 17:09:17 status half-configured zfs-initramfs:all 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:17 status unpacked zfs-initramfs:all 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:17 status half-installed zfs-initramfs:all 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:17 status unpacked zfs-initramfs:all 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:18 upgrade zfs-dkms:all 2.2.2-4 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:18 status triggers-awaited zfs-dkms:all 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:18 status half-configured zfs-dkms:all 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:26 status unpacked zfs-dkms:all 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:26 status half-installed zfs-dkms:all 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:32 status unpacked zfs-dkms:all 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:33 upgrade zfsutils-linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:33 status half-configured zfsutils-linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:33 status unpacked zfsutils-linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:33 status half-installed zfsutils-linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:35 status unpacked zfsutils-linux:amd64 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:35 upgrade libnvpair3linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:35 status triggers-pending libc-bin:amd64 2.37-15 2024-02-27 17:09:35 status half-configured libnvpair3linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:35 status unpacked libnvpair3linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:35 status half-installed libnvpair3linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:36 status unpacked libnvpair3linux:amd64 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:36 upgrade libuutil3linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:36 status half-configured libuutil3linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:36 status unpacked libuutil3linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:36 status half-installed libuutil3linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:37 status unpacked libuutil3linux:amd64 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:37 upgrade libzfs4linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:37 status half-configured libzfs4linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:37 status unpacked libzfs4linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:37 status half-installed libzfs4linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:37 status unpacked libzfs4linux:amd64 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:38 upgrade libzpool5linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:38 status half-configured libzpool5linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:38 status unpacked libzpool5linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:38 status half-installed libzpool5linux:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:38 status unpacked libzpool5linux:amd64 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:39 upgrade zfs-zed:amd64 2.2.2-4 2.2.3-1 2024-02-27 17:09:39 status half-configured zfs-zed:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:39 status unpacked zfs-zed:amd64 2.2.2-4 2024-02-27 17:09:39
