Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:40 -0400, Liam Healy wrote: To answer what questions I think are being asked of me: I do not set DEBIAN_FRONTEND explicitly, I don't know if something else sets it. I do not think I have apt-utils installed. On my computer, questions are generally asked while unpacking, I think. I still don't understand why you weren't informed about the broken settings in 05TeXMF.cnf. What happens, when you first comment the line in 05TeXMF.cnf that definies TEXMFDIST and then call dpkg-reconfigure tex-common; echo $? ? What happens when you do this with DEBIAN_FRONTEND set to noninteractive? In the first case I would expect debconf messages telling you that the configuration is broken plus a '0' printed to stdout. In the second case, I only expect the second thing to happen. This should be '1' and that's the bug that has been fixed now. With this change, tetex-bin wouldn't have tried to configure in the first place. Frank, should some more information be given to the admin in the noninteractive case? tex-common's postinst failing without any indication as to what's wrong doesn't look ideal to me. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank, should some more information be given to the admin in the noninteractive case? tex-common's postinst failing without any indication as to what's wrong doesn't look ideal to me. It might be related to these debconf changes: debconf (1.5.1) unstable; urgency=low [ Joey Hess ] * Stop mailing notes since something like 90% of the use of that data type is abuse anyway. Error messages will still be mailed if necessary. debconf (1.4.69) unstable; urgency=low [ Colin Watson ] * Add support for templates of type 'error', which are largely treated like notes except that they are displayed no matter what the priority and even if they've previously been seen. For example, this can be used for input validation errors. This is compatible with cdebconf. I've never bothered to check this, because I don't receive mail in my pbuilder chroots ;-). But anyway, we should try to detect whether the frontend is noninteractive, and output something on stderr in that case. But how to do that? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:42 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: But anyway, we should try to detect whether the frontend is noninteractive, and output something on stderr in that case. But how to do that? No idea. But is it necessary to detect noninteractive use? I would suggest some very short messages which get the admin started instead of the full explanation that is avaiable via debconf, Something like: Error in $file: $variable not defined. Error in $file: $variable incorrectly defined. And in the end: Unrecoverable errors in your configuration have been detected. Exiting. [For details see your mail and/or use an interactive debconf frontend.] Everything but the last sentence would be useful for the admin that saw the debconf messages, too, simply because it will still be available on the screen once the debconf messages are gone. And for noninteractive use, the admin should now know enough to find out what's wrong. What do you think? cheerio ralf
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:42 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: But anyway, we should try to detect whether the frontend is noninteractive, and output something on stderr in that case. But how to do that? No idea. See bug #367497: Debconf should be fixed. Everything but the last sentence would be useful for the admin that saw the debconf messages, too, simply because it will still be available on the screen once the debconf messages are gone. And for noninteractive use, the admin should now know enough to find out what's wrong. What do you think? You are right. I'll see when I find time to add this. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Liam M. Healy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The following NEW packages will be installed: auctex libkpathsea4 libpoppler0c2 perl-tk preview-latex-style psutils tetex-base tetex-bin tetex-doc tetex-extra tetex-src tex-common 0 packages upgraded, 12 newly installed, 0 to remove and 99 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/142MB of archives. After unpacking 335MB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] Writing extended state information... Done Preconfiguring packages ... /tmp/tex-common.config.100881: line 90: [: =: unary operator expected Hm, that's strange. The line is: if [ $PERMS = $FONTCACHE_PERMS ] ; then maybe quotes around the variables would be better, but I don't understand what's happening. Okay, so now let's look at the main error: = Contents of tetex.updmap.XXYqS5Gd is updmap-sys: This is updmap-sys, version 1107552857-debian updmap-sys: using transcript file `/var/lib/texmf/web2c/updmap-sys.log' updmap is creating new map files using the following configuration: config file: `/var/lib/texmf/web2c/updmap.cfg' dvips output directory: `/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/dvips/updmap' pdftex output directory: `/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap' dvipdfm output directory: `/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/dvipdfm/updmap' prefer outlines: `true' texhash enabled: `true' download standard fonts (dvips): `false' This is not the configuration as shipped in the deb, and it's not recommended by Adobe to set this to false. But it shouldn't matter here; it just gives a hint that you probably have changed the conffiles somewhere. download standard fonts (pdftex): `true' download standard fonts (dvipdfm): `true' updmap-sys: Scanning for LW35 support files !!! ERROR! The map file `dvips35.map' has not been found at all. This file should be in /usr/share/texmf-tetex/fonts/map/dvips/tetex/dvips35.map Does it exist? What is (as root) the output of kpsewhich -show-path=map Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 12:12 -0400, Liam Healy wrote: On 5/14/06, Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Meanwhile this makes sense to me. 05TeXMF.cnf is managed by ucf, and ucf sees that the 'previously installed' version and the 'to be installed' version have the same md5sum, hence my changed version is preserved, as it is supposed to be. Which seems like a defect in the change-detection algorithm. Why are the md5sums of the different files the same? Wouldn't it make more sense to use diff to see if there's a difference? In any case, this doesn't explain my experience; my md5sums are very different: ec6c37a0d317ed545a3e66409cf54630 05TeXMF.cnf-home dd2b65e95a497637be4033ecbecdd2bd /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf Sorry for being unclear. I think the behaviour is correct in the case that I investigated and I will try to explain this in a second. I don't know exactly what you did, so I can't tell if my analysis applies there, too. Anyway, what I did plus some interpretation: apt-get install tex-common [here the original 05TeXMF.cnf from the maintainer gets installed and its md5sum registered with ucf.] apt-get remove tex-common [no changes to 05TeXMF.cnf] vi /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf [05TeXMF.cnf gets changed and hence gets a new md5sum] apt-get install tex-common [here ucf has to compare /three/ md5sums: . the registered one from the first step . the md5sum of /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf . the md5sum of 05TeXMF.cnf in the package ucf sees that the first and the third md5sum are identical and therefore does not ask the admin about the changes. This is correct behaviour since the admin purposely changed the config file, and these changes should be maintained. Only when the debian maintainers change the shipped config file, ie the first and third md5sum are not identical, the admin gets notified.] As I said, I think everything is correct here. Even though the settings in 05TeXMF.cnf would /break/ the system, since TEXMFDIST is not set, the checks in tex-common's postinst did /not detect/ this! What is going wrong here? I think I have found an explanation for this. In check_texmf() in the postinst script, $checkfailed is allways set to false in the beginning. Hence if some check in the middle fails but the last one not, this is not detected. Moving the failing chack to the end or removing that line makes the postinst fail. However, it fails without any further notice, so I think this is not the whole story. All the debconf stuff in check_texmf() does not work within my pbuilder. Strange ... I don't understand this; I don't know what fails without any further notice means, but it certainly seems like a bug. If I change on my real sytem /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf in such a way that TEXMFDIST is not definied and call 'dpkg-reconfigure tex-common', this change is detected by the posinst script and a debconf message appeares telling me that I should fix the defintion of TEXMFDIST. For whatever reason I don't get this in my pbuilder. I have only managed to have it exit with exit code 1 (ie failure). But this deconf message telling me what is wrong never appeared. The same goes for the deconf messages concerning the font cache. That might be related to the two recent bug reports about /var/cache/fonts not being world writable by default. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I change on my real sytem /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf in such a way that TEXMFDIST is not definied and call 'dpkg-reconfigure tex-common', this change is detected by the posinst script and a debconf message appeares telling me that I should fix the defintion of TEXMFDIST. For whatever reason I don't get this in my pbuilder. I have only managed to have it exit with exit code 1 (ie failure). But this deconf message telling me what is wrong never appeared. Usually pbuilder sets DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive in its chroots. Have you changed that? Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:09 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Liam M. Healy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Writing extended state information... Done Preconfiguring packages ... /tmp/tex-common.config.100881: line 90: [: =: unary operator expected Hm, that's strange. The line is: if [ $PERMS = $FONTCACHE_PERMS ] ; then maybe quotes around the variables would be better, but I don't understand what's happening. Me neither. I does not happen in a clean sid pbuilder. cheerio ralf
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:09 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Liam M. Healy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Writing extended state information... Done Preconfiguring packages ... /tmp/tex-common.config.100881: line 90: [: =: unary operator expected Hm, that's strange. The line is: if [ $PERMS = $FONTCACHE_PERMS ] ; then maybe quotes around the variables would be better, but I don't understand what's happening. Me neither. I does not happen in a clean sid pbuilder. $ if [ = bla ]; then echo ja; fi bash: [: =: unary operator expected $ if [ blubb = ]; then echo ja; fi bash: [: blubb: unary operator expected $ if [ '' = bla ]; then echo ja; fi $ So that means that $PERMS is empty. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, that's strange. The line is: if [ $PERMS = $FONTCACHE_PERMS ] ; then maybe quotes around the variables would be better, but I don't understand what's happening. I believe I do. And yes, the solution is to add double quotes (if I am right). I believe $PERMS expands to nothing, presumably because of the: PERMS=$(stat --format=%a /var/cache/fonts 2/dev/null) || true which went through the || true case. Therefore, the shell sees: if [ = stuff ]; then And you can try this at home, with sh - bash: % if [ = azeeaz ]; then echo a; else echo b; fi sh: [: =: unary operator expected b % Same error message. HTH, -- Florent
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think I have found an explanation for this. In check_texmf() in the postinst script, $checkfailed is allways set to false in the beginning. Many thanks, fixing in SVN. Gruß, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:44 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I change on my real sytem /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf in such a way that TEXMFDIST is not definied and call 'dpkg-reconfigure tex-common', this change is detected by the posinst script and a debconf message appeares telling me that I should fix the defintion of TEXMFDIST. For whatever reason I don't get this in my pbuilder. I have only managed to have it exit with exit code 1 (ie failure). But this deconf message telling me what is wrong never appeared. Usually pbuilder sets DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive in its chroots. Have you changed that? Thanks Frank, that was what I was looking for but failed to find. If I unset DEBIAN_FRONTEND before installing tex-common in my pbuilder, I get a warning message via debconf that my configuration is broken. Nice :-) Liam, do you have a setting like this? If yes, then it is clear why the postinst could not inform you about your non-working configuration and I would suggest to close this bug. BTW, with unset DEBIAN_FRONTEND I also get the question about managing the font cache. Contrary to the displayed text, the default is to manage the cache with debconf which gives directories which are not world writeable. :-( cheerio ralf
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On Mon, 15 May 2006 12:45:19 +0200, Florent Rougon wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hm, that's strange. The line is: if [ $PERMS = $FONTCACHE_PERMS ] ; then maybe quotes around the variables would be better, but I don't understand what's happening. I believe I do. And yes, the solution is to add double quotes (if I am right). I believe $PERMS expands to nothing, presumably because of the: I guess Florent's reasoning is correct and in fact I saw this messages on 2 unstable systems as I wrote On Sat, 13 May 2006 11:28:56 +0900 (JST), Atsuhito Kohda wrote: I noticed that tex-common displayed a message like following yesterday. I'm afraid this was known already but for safety anyway. /tmp/tex-common.config.142101: line 90: [: =: unary operator expected Regards, 2006-5-15(Mon) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, with unset DEBIAN_FRONTEND I also get the question about managing the font cache. Contrary to the displayed text, the default is to manage the cache with debconf which gives directories which are not world writeable. :-( Did you have apt-utils installed, or in other words: Was the question asked before unpacking? If this is true, I've got a fix ready. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Frank Küster wrote: Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, with unset DEBIAN_FRONTEND I also get the question about managing the font cache. Contrary to the displayed text, the default is to manage the cache with debconf which gives directories which are not world writeable. :-( Did you have apt-utils installed, or in other words: Was the question asked before unpacking? If this is true, I've got a fix ready. Yes. I guess this is meanwhile irrelevant, though, since you allready commited the patch. cheerio ralf
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
I've lost the thread of what's going on here, but I'll presume good things are happening. To answer what questions I think are being asked of me: I do not set DEBIAN_FRONTEND explicitly, I don't know if something else sets it. I do not think I have apt-utils installed. On my computer, questions are generally asked while unpacking, I think. I believe that the 05TeXMF.cnf is the only file I customized in the tetex family of packages. At one point I had /etc/texmf/dvips/config.ps customized but I'm not sure that's true anymore (I'm not at that computer now so I can't check). On 5/15/06, Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Küster wrote: Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW, with unset DEBIAN_FRONTEND I also get the question about managing the font cache. Contrary to the displayed text, the default is to manage the cache with debconf which gives directories which are not world writeable. :-( Did you have apt-utils installed, or in other words: Was the question asked before unpacking? If this is true, I've got a fix ready. Yes. I guess this is meanwhile irrelevant, though, since you allready commited the patch. cheerio ralf
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 19:57 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: Even though I modified 05TeXMF.cnf, I was /not asked/ about this during reinstallation of tex-common! Meanwhile this makes sense to me. 05TeXMF.cnf is managed by ucf, and ucf sees that the 'previously installed' version and the 'to be installed' version have the same md5sum, hence my changed version is preserved, as it is supposed to be. Even though the settings in 05TeXMF.cnf would /break/ the system, since TEXMFDIST is not set, the checks in tex-common's postinst did /not detect/ this! What is going wrong here? I think I have found an explanation for this. In check_texmf() in the postinst script, $checkfailed is allways set to false in the beginning. Hence if some check in the middle fails but the last one not, this is not detected. Moving the failing chack to the end or removing that line makes the postinst fail. However, it fails without any further notice, so I think this is not the whole story. All the debconf stuff in check_texmf() does not work within my pbuilder. Strange ... cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On 5/14/06, Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 19:57 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: Even though I modified 05TeXMF.cnf, I was /not asked/ about this during reinstallation of tex-common! Meanwhile this makes sense to me. 05TeXMF.cnf is managed by ucf, and ucf sees that the 'previously installed' version and the 'to be installed' version have the same md5sum, hence my changed version is preserved, as it is supposed to be. Which seems like a defect in the change-detection algorithm. Why are the md5sums of the different files the same? Wouldn't it make more sense to use diff to see if there's a difference? In any case, this doesn't explain my experience; my md5sums are very different: ec6c37a0d317ed545a3e66409cf54630 05TeXMF.cnf-home dd2b65e95a497637be4033ecbecdd2bd /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf Even though the settings in 05TeXMF.cnf would /break/ the system, since TEXMFDIST is not set, the checks in tex-common's postinst did /not detect/ this! What is going wrong here? I think I have found an explanation for this. In check_texmf() in the postinst script, $checkfailed is allways set to false in the beginning. Hence if some check in the middle fails but the last one not, this is not detected. Moving the failing chack to the end or removing that line makes the postinst fail. However, it fails without any further notice, so I think this is not the whole story. All the debconf stuff in check_texmf() does not work within my pbuilder. Strange ... I don't understand this; I don't know what fails without any further notice means, but it certainly seems like a bug. cheerio ralf Liam
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
I had a custom-made /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf which was not removed because I had not purged tex-common; this happened because I grepped packages for tetex and I didn't see tex-common. However, when I tried to purge tex-common together with all the tetex packages, nothing happened. It was necessary to purge the package by itself, aptitude purge tex-common then install apt-get install tex-common aptitude install tetex-base tetex-bin tetex-doc tetex-extra tetex-src auctex At this point all appears well; the files you mention like /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFDIST-TETEX now are present and TeX runs normally. Thanks for the pointer to tex-common, the separate purge and reinstallation seems to have fixed the problem. I do not recall being asked about 05TexMF.cnf; I usually look at the differences if I do not have a good feeling that the changes are benign and that the old configuration is acceptable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
retitle 366907 Checking configuration files does not work properly
severity 366907 normal
thanks
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 11:30 -0400, Liam M. Healy wrote:
Thanks for the pointer to tex-common, the separate purge and
reinstallation seems to have fixed the problem.
Welcome. I am downgrading instead of closing this bug, since I can
reproduce this part here:
I do not recall being
asked about 05TexMF.cnf; I usually look at the differences if I do not
have a good feeling that the changes are benign and that the old
configuration is acceptable.
I started with a clean sid-pbuilder. After that I did the following
# apt-get install tex-common
# apt-get remove tex-common
# vi /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf
# egrep 'TEXMFDIST =' /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf
% TEXMFDIST = /usr/share/texmf-dist
% TEXMFDIST = /usr/share/texmf-{tetex,texlive}
# apt-get install tex-common
# egrep 'TEXMFDIST =' /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf
% TEXMFDIST = /usr/share/texmf-dist
% TEXMFDIST = /usr/share/texmf-{tetex,texlive}
# ls -l /etc/texmf/texmf.d/
total 44
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6711 May 13 17:19 05TeXMF.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1080 May 13 17:15 15Plain.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3410 May 13 17:15 45TeXinputs.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1240 May 13 17:15 55Fonts.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 163 May 13 17:15 65BibTeX.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 689 May 13 17:15 75DviPS.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2684 May 13 17:15 85Misc.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 333 May 13 17:15 90TeXDoc.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6485 May 13 17:15 95NonPath.cnf
Even though I modified 05TeXMF.cnf, I was /not asked/ about this during
reinstallation of tex-common! Even though the settings in 05TeXMF.cnf
would /break/ the system, since TEXMFDIST is not set, the checks in
tex-common's postinst did /not detect/ this! What is going wrong here?
BTW, in addition I got
# ls -l /var/cache/fonts/
total 12
drwxrwsr-t 2 root users 4096 May 10 13:07 pk
drwxrwsr-t 2 root users 4096 May 10 13:07 source
drwxrwsr-t 2 root users 4096 May 10 13:07 tfm
without any questions asked. I thought the default should be world
writable to get things like pbuilder/bbuild correct. I admit I didn't
follow the discussions on that problem very closely, though.
cheerio
ralf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 21:18 -0400, Liam M. Healy wrote: Package: tetex-bin Version: 3.0-16 Severity: grave tetex-bin will not configure. http://bugs.debian.org/346326 seems related, but it appears the problem there was that the user had modified the configuration file. I originally got this error after I upgraded May 6; to be sure I'm starting clean I purged all the tetex packages and reinstalled. I still get the error. Did you also purge tex-common? Many important configuration files are in that package. What is the output of ls -l /etc/texmf/texmf.d/ egrep ^TEXMF /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf ? I am asking, because this here looks suspicious: [...] mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R... mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN... mktexlsr: Updating /var/cache/fonts/ls-R... mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R... mktexlsr: Done. On my system, running mktexlsr gives # mktexlsr mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R... mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN... mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFDIST-TETEX... mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXLIVE... mktexlsr: Updating /var/cache/fonts/ls-R... mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R... mktexlsr: Done. The important thing here is /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFDIST-TETEX. This file is used to find files located under /usr/share/texmf-tetex/, which is where dvips35.map can be found: $ dlocate dvips35.map tetex-base: /usr/share/texmf-tetex/fonts/map/dvips/tetex/dvips35.map cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#366907: tetex-bin: Fails to configure, updmap failed
Package: tetex-bin Version: 3.0-16 Severity: grave tetex-bin will not configure. http://bugs.debian.org/346326 seems related, but it appears the problem there was that the user had modified the configuration file. I originally got this error after I upgraded May 6; to be sure I'm starting clean I purged all the tetex packages and reinstalled. I still get the error. aptitude install tetex-base tetex-bin tetex-doc tetex-extra tetex-src auctex Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading extended state information Initializing package states... Done Reading task descriptions... Done Building tag database... Done The following NEW packages will be automatically installed: libkpathsea4 libpoppler0c2 perl-tk preview-latex-style psutils tex-common The following packages have been kept back: alsa-utils cpp-3.4 debianutils e2fslibs e2fsprogs emacs21-common epiphany-browser exim4 exim4-base exim4-daemon-light flpsed g77 g77-3.4 gcc-3.4 gcc-3.4-base gnome-media gnumeric gnumeric-common grace gsfonts-x11 gstreamer0.8-gnomevfs libblkid1 libbonoboui2-0 libbonoboui2-common libdirectfb-0.9-22 libdmx1 libdv-bin libecal1.2-3 libedata-book1.2-2 libedata-cal1.2-1 libfltk1.1 libg2c0 libg2c0-dev libgcj-common libglu1-xorg libgnome-desktop-2 libgnome2-0 libgnome2-common libgnomedb2-4 libgnomedb2-common libgnomeui-0 libgnomeui-common libgnomevfs2-0 libgnomevfs2-common libgoffice-1-2 libhdf5-serial-dev libnautilus-extension1 libpanel-applet2-0 librsvg2-2 librsvg2-common libsvn0 libx11-6 libxdmcp6 libxfixes3 libxft2 libxine1 libxklavier10 mozilla-mplayer mozilla-thunderbird mozilla-thunderbird-enigmail mplayer-586 music123 octave2.1 octave2.1-headers ofx openoffice.org openoffice.org-base openoffice.org-calc openoffice.org-common openoffice.org-core openoffice.org-draw openoffice.org-impress openoffice.org-l10n-en-us openoffice.org-math openoffice.org-writer python-newt python-uno sound-juicer subversion subversion-tools udev whiptail x-window-system-core x11-common xbase-clients xfce4 xfonts-100dpi xfonts-75dpi xfonts-base xfonts-scalable xfwm4-themes xlibmesa-dri xlibmesa-gl xlibs-data xprint xprint-common xserver-xorg xutils yelp The following NEW packages will be installed: auctex libkpathsea4 libpoppler0c2 perl-tk preview-latex-style psutils tetex-base tetex-bin tetex-doc tetex-extra tetex-src tex-common 0 packages upgraded, 12 newly installed, 0 to remove and 99 not upgraded. Need to get 0B/142MB of archives. After unpacking 335MB will be used. Do you want to continue? [Y/n/?] Writing extended state information... Done Preconfiguring packages ... /tmp/tex-common.config.100881: line 90: [: =: unary operator expected Selecting previously deselected package tex-common. (Reading database ... 101125 files and directories currently installed.) Unpacking tex-common (from .../tex-common_0.22_all.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package tetex-base. Unpacking tetex-base (from .../tetex-base_3.0-17_all.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package libkpathsea4. Unpacking libkpathsea4 (from .../libkpathsea4_3.0-16_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package libpoppler0c2. Unpacking libpoppler0c2 (from .../libpoppler0c2_0.4.5-4_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package tetex-bin. Unpacking tetex-bin (from .../tetex-bin_3.0-16_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package tetex-doc. Unpacking tetex-doc (from .../tetex-doc_3.0-17_all.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package tetex-extra. Unpacking tetex-extra (from .../tetex-extra_3.0-17_all.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package preview-latex-style. Unpacking preview-latex-style (from .../preview-latex-style_11.82-1_all.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package auctex. Unpacking auctex (from .../auctex_11.82-1_all.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package perl-tk. Unpacking perl-tk (from .../perl-tk_1%3a804.027-4_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package psutils. Unpacking psutils (from .../psutils_1.17-21_i386.deb) ... Selecting previously deselected package tetex-src. Unpacking tetex-src (from .../tetex-src_3.0-1_all.deb) ... Setting up tex-common (0.22) ... Setting up tetex-base (3.0-17) ... done Creating config file /etc/texdoctk/texdocrc with new version Setting up libkpathsea4 (3.0-16) ... Setting up libpoppler0c2 (0.4.5-4) ... Setting up tetex-bin (3.0-16) ... Creating config file /etc/texmf/fmt.d/01tetex.cnf with new version Running fmtutil-sys. This may take some time. ... Running updmap-sys. This may take some time. ... updmap failed. Output has been stored in /tmp/tetex.updmap.XXYqS5Gd Please include this file if you report a bug. dpkg: error processing tetex-bin (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Setting up tetex-doc (3.0-17) ... mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R... mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN...
