Bug#345604: contains non-free documentation
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 18:54 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > here's the start of a list of documents that have no source in > tetex-base or tetex-src, but whose source is available elsewhere: And here some documents with (possibly) problematic license: l2tabuen.pdf: GFDL, >= v1.2, no Invariant Sections, Front- or Back-Cover Texts l2tabu.pdf Open Publication License, >= v1.0, http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ (I don't know if this license is DFSG-free) The source for both these documents is in tetex-src. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: contains non-free documentation
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 18:08 +0100, Ralf Stubner wrote: > And here some documents with (possibly) problematic license: pdftex-a.pdf GFDL, >= v1.2, no Invariant Sections, Front- or Back-Cover Texts fontinstallationguide.pdf GFDL, >= v1.2, no Invariant Sections, Front- or Back-Cover Texts Source can be found in CTAN:info/Type1fonts/fontinstallationguide/. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#327741: it's more interesting than it looks like.
Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > apparently there are plenty of files like that one with more desperate > notes/copyrights in them. > > grep "You are not allowed to change this file" * -ril | wc -l shows at > least 33 files with such statement. I just made the same search (32 files are from the KOMA-Script package allown). All of these files are generated files. Derived versions are possible if you start with the original source and use a different name (roughly speaking). See, eg, /usr/share/doc/texmf/latex/koma-script/LEGAL.TXT for details. With respect to the original message: /usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/seminar/xcomment.sty is part of the seminar package. In the documentation to the seminar package it says: ,[ /usr/share/doc/texmf/latex/seminar/sem-read.me.gz ] | IMPORTANT NOTE | | With the agreement of Timothy Van Zandt (now [EMAIL PROTECTED]), | the distributions conditions on seminar are now relaxed to: | | This package may be distributed under the terms of the LaTeX Project Public | License, as described in lppl.txt in the base LaTeX distribution. | Either version 1.0 or, at your option, any later version. | | This overrides the conditions listed below. A new version of | "seminar" is in preparation by Timothy van Zandt. | | June 3rd 1999 | Sebastian Rahtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Denis Girou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | (Tim's helpers on earth) ` I guess the TeX world is not known for rapid release cycles ... cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#334701: can't install tetex-bin 2.0.2-31 due to /usr/share/man/man1/texi2pdf.1.gz
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 16:36 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-10-19 15:49:07 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > No, it isn't, since 334613 is against 3.0-9, and has only been > > introduced by this upload. I don't know what is happening with 2.0.2, > > and honestly I won't try to find out, since this version is no longer > > available in sid. If you like, you can report a separate bug against > > the testing version, but I won't put time into it. > > If the unstable packages are going to be fixed before 2.0.2, then > this is fine. Sorry, but I am not sure what you are trying to tell here. Since 3.0 is in unstable, we can't easily provide a fixed 2.0.2 package for testing, even if we had the manpower to do so. We can only try to offer workarounds. In your case, I think it would be best to uninstall jadetex and texinfo. After that, update to teTeX 3.0 from unstable, which works fine if jadetex is not present. After that, reinstall jadetex and texinfo. HTH. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#334713: [Florian Cramer] Re: tetex-bin: package doesn't install because of missing mfw binary
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 12:40 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > mfw was the name of the mf binary with X11 support, mf-nowin is the name > without. In 2.0, /usr/bin/mf was a symlink to /usr/bin/mfw, now it the > binary itself is called /usr/bin/mf. > > I think this is an upstream change, Yes, this is an upstream change. teTeX 2.0.2 compilde from source has mf -> mfw mf-nowin mfw teTeX 3.0 compiled from source has mf mf-nowin > but restoring the old behavior > probably won't hurt anybody. We could also create the reverse symlink > (mfw -> mf), but then we get problems in case we want to split of a > tetex-bin-nowin package and want /usr/bin/mf to be managed with > update-alternatives. ACK cheerio ralf
Bug#335055: tetex-bin: Uninstallable: rm: cannot remove `/var/lib/texmf/web2c/*fmt': No such file or directory
merge 335055 335065 thanks On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 19:51 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > Setting up tetex-bin (3.0-10) ... > rm: cannot remove `/var/lib/texmf/web2c/*fmt': No such file or > directory > dpkg: error processing tetex-bin (--configure): > subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Thanks for reporting. This is now fixed in our SVN. > I'm also seeing problems on upgrades, but the errors are ussually > of my screen by the time I look at them, and when trying it again > they're succesful. I can only assume they're related. Upgrades from which version? On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 02:25 +0800, binghe wrote: > Setting up tetex-bin (3.0-10) ... > > Creating config file /etc/texmf/fmt.d/01tetex.cnf with new version > rm: cannot remove `/var/lib/texmf/web2c/*fmt': No such file or directory > dpkg: error processing tetex-bin (--configure): > subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Thanks for reporting to you, too. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#335055: tetex-bin: Uninstallable: rm: cannot remove `/var/lib/texmf/web2c/*fmt': No such file or directory
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 21:04 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 08:52:50PM +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: > > You'll need to adjust the severity of 335065 to grave first > before merging. Thanks. > > > I'm also seeing problems on upgrades, but the errors are ussually > > > of my screen by the time I look at them, and when trying it again > > > they're succesful. I can only assume they're related. > > > > Upgrades from which version? > > This was first from 2.0.2-31 to 3.0-9, which is supposed to be > fixed in -10 (#334613), but I also had problems going from 3.0-9 > to 3.0-10, but I'm not sure if it's related to the bug that got > fixed in -10 or not, or if it was this one. Strange. Upgrading from 3.0-9 to 3.0-10 works fine here in a clean pbuilder w/ or w/o jadetex installed. Of course, there might be other interactions with TeX related packages that ypu have installed. What packages that depend on one of the tetex packages do you have installed? BTW, anybody encountering bug #335055/#335065 can, as a simple workaround, create an empty file /var/lib/texmf/web2c/foo.fmt before (re)configuring tetex-bin. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#335055: tetex-bin: Uninstallable: rm: cannot remove `/var/lib/texmf/web2c/*fmt': No such file or directory
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 15:23 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 08:52:50PM +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: > > > > Thanks for reporting. This is now fixed in our SVN. > > It would be nice if this got uploaded soon, since this is causing > problems on the buildds. I am not a DD, so I can't help here. AFAIK Frank, who does the main work on the teTeX packages, is offline over the weekend. The fix is in the SVN, though, (together with a fix for #334660) located at svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-tetex/tetex-bin/trunk/ Maybe one of the other uploaders for teTeX could prepare new packages? I am not experienced enough to judge the situation, but a NMU might also make sense. Sorry for not being able to help more. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#335303: tetex-bin: failed to install: updmap error
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:33 +0200, Sebastien Helleu wrote: > Package: tetex-bin > Version: 3.0-10.1 > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable Thanks for reporting. From which version did you upgrade? > download standard fonts (dvips): `false' > download standard fonts (pdftex): `false' > download standard fonts (dvipdfm): `false' Interesting, current tetex has 'true' for the last two options. What is the output of 'ls /etc/texmf/updmap.d/'? Did you (maybe automatically) decline some offered updates of configuration files? > updmap-sys: Scanning for LW35 support files > > !!! ERROR: The right location for map files has been > changed for this release and the map file `dvips35.map' has > not been found in the right location, but in the obsolete > location > /usr/share/texmf/dvips/config/dvips35.map > instead. > > To fix this, please move this file into an appropriate > subdirectory of fonts/map in one of your texmf trees. If > the file has been installed by a Debian package, please do > not move it. Instead, please report a bug against that package, > and send a copy of that bug to > > debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org > > For more information about the changed search paths, see > the release notes section in the teTeX manual. You probably > can read this document by executing the command > texdoc TETEXDOC > else visit the web page > http://tug.org/texlive/mapenc.html This looks like a variant of #335210. Does that link $ ls -ld /usr/share/texmf/fonts/map/dvips lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 2005-10-20 18:59 /usr/share/texmf/fonts/map/dvips -> /etc/texmf/map/dvips exist on your system? If /usr/share/texmf/fonts/map/dvips is a directory, what's its content? cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#335303: tetex-bin: failed to install: updmap error
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 13:45 +0200, Sebastien Helleu wrote: > On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:12:51PM +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: > > Thanks for reporting. From which version did you upgrade? > > I think from 3.0-10. Where there any problems with version 3.0-10? > > What is > > the output of 'ls /etc/texmf/updmap.d/'? Did you (maybe automatically) > > decline some offered updates of configuration files? > > $ ls -l /etc/texmf/updmap.d/ > total 16 > -rw--- 1 root root 2789 2005-10-22 18:11 00updmap.cfg > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2787 2005-10-22 18:17 00updmap.cfg.dpkg-dist > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2623 2005-10-19 16:10 10tetex-base.cfg > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1314 2005-10-19 16:11 20tetex-extra.cfg.dpkg-new > > If I answered to some questions about files update, I think I answered > yes (to overwrite), but not sure. Hmm, what's the difference between /etc/texmf/updmap.d/00updmap.cfg and /etc/texmf/updmap.d/00updmap.cfg.dpkg-dist? > > This looks like a variant of #335210. Does that link > > > > $ ls -ld /usr/share/texmf/fonts/map/dvips > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 2005-10-20 18:59 > > /usr/share/texmf/fonts/map/dvips -> /etc/texmf/map/dvips > > > > exist on your system? > > Yes this link exists. On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 13:49 +0200, Sebastien Helleu wrote: > $ dpkg -S dvips35.map > tetex-base: /etc/texmf/map/dvips/tetex/dvips35.map [...] > $ dpkg -S pdftex35.map > tetex-base: /etc/texmf/map/dvips/tetex/pdftex35.map [...] > $ ls -l /usr/share/texmf/fonts/map > total 4 > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 22 2005-10-22 18:08 dvipdfm -> > /etc/texmf/map/dvipdfm > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 20 2005-10-22 18:08 dvips -> > /etc/texmf/map/dvips > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-22 18:08 fontname > lrwxr-xr-x 1 root root 21 2005-10-22 18:08 pdftex -> > /etc/texmf/map/pdftex Ok, all that looks correct. Maybe the search path for mapfiles is incorrect. What's the output of 'ls -l /etc/texmf/texmf.d' and 'grep TEXFONTMAPS /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf'? cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#335303: tetex-bin: failed to install: updmap error
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 14:17 +0200, Florent Rougon wrote: > Good. Presumably, the problem was located (only) in /etc/texmf/updmap.d/ > as suspected by Ralf. Actually, I suspect that there is a similar situation in /etc/texmf/texmf.d/, ie, some configuration files from teTeX 2 are still used. This could cause a wrong search path for mapfiles. What I am wondering is why this problem didn't occur during the original 2.0.2 -> 3.0 update. Also, why are dvips35.map and pdftex35.map still available in /etx/texmf/dvips? I thought these files are moved somehwere save on instalation. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#335550: Problems with jadetex (and the list)
Hi Paul, thanks for reporting this problem. For whatever reason it didn't reach our mailing list. I only saw it right now in the web interface. We had that recently with another bugreport. Maybe these messages are simply to large for the mailing list software? Anyway, concerning your bug report. You get the error message: This is a summary of all `failed' messages and warnings: `tex -ini -jobname=jadetex -progname=jadetex &latex jadetex.ini' failed The error message from tetex.postinst.XXhnN5lJ is: This is TeX, Version 3.141592 (Web2C 7.5.4) (INITEX) ---! /var/lib/texmf/web2c/latex.fmt was written by pdfetex (Fatal format file error; I'm stymied) Here it is tried to build the jadetex format with the TeX engine. Problem is, that it uses the LaTeX format, which was build with the pdfetex engine. What files do you have in '/etc/texmf/fmt.d/'? What's the content of '/etc/texmf/fmt.d/40jadetex.cnf'? My guess is, that at some point you refused to update the configuration files for jadetex, because current jadetex packages build all their formats with (pdf)etex. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#334613: tetex-bin: same problem still exists
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 16:35 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > prefer outlines: `true'. > texhash enabled: `true'. > download standard fonts (dvips): `false'. > download standard fonts (pdftex): `false'. > download standard fonts (dvipdfm): `false'. [...] > ls -ld /usr/share/texmf/fonts/map/dvips # without trailing "/" > ls /usr/share/texmf/fonts/map/dvips/tetex/ > kpsewhich --format=map dvips35.map > kpsewhich --show-path map One further question, in addition to the ones Frank posted: The 'download standard fonts' settings above are those from teTeX 2. Hence please post the output of ls -l /etc/texmf/updmap.d/ cheerio ralf
Bug#340890: feynmf: FTBFS: fmtutil: format `mpost' not available
On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 19:20 +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > Package: feynmf > Version: 1.08-1 > Severity: serious > > Hi, > > building the package feynmf in a clean sid build environment > (with pbuilder) on i386 results in: [...] > mpost fmfsamp1; mpost fmfsamp2; mpost fmfsamp3; mpost fmfsamp4; > This is MetaPost, Version 0.641 (Web2C 7.5.4) > kpathsea: Running mktexfmt mpost.mem > fmtutil: format `mpost' not available. Looks like feynmf misses a build dependency on tetex-extra. For creation of the mpost format, the MetaPost base files like mpost.mp from tetex-extra are needed. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#340990: gnat-glade-doc: FTBFS: etex error
On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 17:22 +0100, Roland Stigge wrote: > /tmp/t2d19264/src/glade_ug.texi:373: Undefined control sequence. > @pdfimage > xe-arch.fig.pdf [...] > Output written on glade_ug.dvi (11 pages, 18936 bytes). > Transcript written on glade_ug.log. > /usr/bin/texi2dvi: etex exited with bad status, quitting. texi2dvi looking for a pdf file. That looks like an incorrect check for pdfTeX. See scetion 4.6 'pdfetex: the new default TEX engine' of TETEXDOC (call 'texdoc TETEXDOC' to read it). This check might be in glade_ug.texi. Or gnat-glade-doc ships an outdated version of texinfo.tex. Including texinfo.tex is not necessary, since the texinfo package provides an uptodate version of that file. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#341827: tetex-bin chokes on install while running fmtutil-sys
On Sat, Dec 03, 2005 at 05:02 -0800, Arias Hung wrote: > > This is a summary of all `failed' messages and warnings: > `pdfetex -ini -jobname=latex -progname=latex -translate-file=cp227.tcx > *latex.ini' failed > `pdfetex -ini -jobname=etex -progname=etex -translate-file=cp227.tcx > *etex.ini' failed > `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdftex -progname=pdftex -translate-file=cp227.tcx > *pdftex.ini' failed > `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex -translate-file=cp227.tcx > *pdflatex.ini' failed > `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdfetex -progname=pdfetex -translate-file=cp227.tcx > *pdfetex.ini' failed > `pdfetex -ini -jobname=amstex -progname=amstex -translate-file=cp227.tcx > *amstex.ini' failed > > fmtutil failed. Output has been stored in > /tmp/tetex.postinst.XXXEf82J > Please include this file if you report a bug. Please send us the file /tmp/tetex.postinst.XXXEf82J. This is necessary for debugging. Thanks. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: ConTeXt documentation is non-free
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:27 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > Package: tetex-doc > Version: 3.0-11 > Severity: serious > > The license is clearly non-free: > > | All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, > | stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any > | means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, > | without prior written permission of the publisher. (from /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/manual/cont-eni.pdf.gz) This sounds bad, indeed. However, I think that the ConTeXt manual is actually covered by the general ConTeXt license in /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/base/mreadme.pdf.gz and /usr/share/doc/texmf/context/base/LICENSE.teTeX, which is free. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: contains non-free documentation
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 18:08 +0100, Ralf Stubner wrote: > And here some documents with (possibly) problematic license: l2kurz.pdf: GFDL, >= v1.2, no Invariant Sections, Front- or Back-Cover Texts :-( cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#338376: \usepackage[force]{textcomp} side effects for debiandoc-sgml
On Tue, Jan 31, 2006 at 19:36 +0100, Jens Seidel wrote: > > debiandoc-sgml does no longer build Debian FAQ. > > $ latex /tmp/error.tex > This is e-TeX, Version 3.14159-2.1 (Web2C 7.4.5) That's teTeX 2.0. :-( > entering extended mode > (/tmp/error.tex > LaTeX2e <2001/06/01> > Babel and hyphenation patterns for american, ngerman, nohyphenation, > lo > aded. > (/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/book.cls > Document Class: book 2001/04/21 v1.4e Standard LaTeX document class > (/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/bk10.clo)) > (/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/textcomp.sty > (/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/ts1enc.def)) > > ! LaTeX Error: Unknown option `force' for package `textcomp'. According to http://packages.qa.debian.org/d/debiandoc-sgml.html debiandoc-sgml 1.1.94, which contains this fix for teTeX 3.0, migrated to testing. Unfortunately, teTeX 3.0 has not yet migrated to testing. And the fix is incompatible with the teTeX 2.0.2 that is in testing. Hopefully, teTeX 3.0 will migrate to testing in the next couple of days, which would then solve this problem. I don't see a clean and simple solution for this. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: contains non-free documentation
On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 20:27 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: [GFDL, OpenPub, ...] > I think we should move these to tetex-doc-nonfree, and only try to > contact the maintainers whether they are willing to relicense them once > we know about a DFSG-free documentation license, in other words, > hopefully once the revised CC licenses are released. ACK. As long only licenses meant for programs are known DFSG free, there is no point asking authors to change licenses. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351333: cid-x.map is almost empty
Hi, I haven't read the full bug report yet. So only a few general comments. On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:35 +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > I've checked, tetex-base, and it provides map files in > > /usr/share/texmf-tetex/fonts/map/ > > and has files under > > /etc/texmf/updmap.d/ > > > > Probably ptex-base should provide map files somewhere, > > so that it can be used by dvipdfmx. The way how fonts are to be installed for TeX-related programs is documented in the Debian TeX policy contained in the tex-common package. > > updmap manpage tells me > > > >updmap is a utility that creates font configuration files for > > dvips(1), pdftex(1), xdvi(1), ps2pk(1), gsftopk(1), dvipdfm(1) and > > (soon) dvipdfmx(1). > > > > whatever that means, it's probably not yet supported. I think the main problem is that dvipdfmx understands some special syntax, which none of the other programs understand: [...] > [EMAIL PROTECTED]@ ETen-B5-H bsmi00lp [...] Since no other program understands this @@, it has to go to a different map file. Until updmap is able to handle this, some other way of dealing with this is necessary. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#373951: tetex-base: FTBFS: rerunning quilt push -a fails
On Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 17:15 +0200, Mohammed Adnène Trojette wrote: > On Fri, Jun 16, 2006, Daniel Schepler wrote: > > fakeroot debian/rules binary > > quilt push -a > > File series fully applied, ends at patch patch-tmp > > make: *** [stampdir/patch-stamp] Error 2 > > I suggest adding " || test $$? = 2" after quilt commands in > debian/rules.in. See the NMU diff here: Why should it be ignored, if quilt exits with error code 2? What's the rationale behind this? cheerio ralf
Bug#363061: tetex-extra: palatcm.sty is non-free
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 15:14 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> ,
> | %%% Copyright (C) 1994 Aloysius G. Helminck. All rights reserved.
> | %%% Permission is granted to to customize the declarations in this
> | %%% file to serve the needs of your installation. However, no permission
> | %%% is granted to distribute a modified version of this file under
> | %%% its original name.
> `
>
> But it doesn't even allow use - don't know whether this is implicitly
> granted?
I would vote for implicitly granted usage rights, but IANAL.
> The fd files in the same directory don't have any copyright or license
> statement at all; don't know whether they need one.
>
> And I don't know whether this package is still useful today at all...
I don't think so. There are better ways to get math for palatino. T1
encoding is not supported. I guess these files are only in there for
compatibility with (really) old documents.
BTW, the way these files are arranged in different directories is really
odd:
STY and FD in TEXMF/tex/latex/palatcm
TFM and VF in TEXMF/fonts/{tfm,vf}/adobe/mathppl/
However, in TEXMF/tex/latex/mathpple (note the 'e'), there are old FD
files for getting Helvetica scaled to 95%, while mathpple.sty is an
obsolete styfile from PSNFSS located in TEXMF/tex/latex/psnfss. I don't
claim to understand this mess.
cheerio
ralf
Bug#363061: tetex-extra: palatcm.sty is non-free
Frank Küster wrote: >>> The fd files in the same directory don't have any copyright or license >>> statement at all; don't know whether they need one. > > Even worse, they contain the statement: > > %Filename: > %Created by: tex fontplcm > %Created using fontinst v1.335 BTW, the corresponding TFM/VF are also a result from fontplcm.tex. :-( > But there's no file "fontplcm" anywhere, only > ftp://tug.ctan.org/pub/tex-archive/fonts/psfonts/psnfss-source/mathpple/fontplcme.tex > (note the additional e) which doesn't seem to be related. That one is indeed unrelated. It uses the Euler fonts for the greek letters, not the CM fonts. [...] > Do you know if that mess originates from the CTAN locations, or is it > only in teTeX? No idea. cheerio ralf
Bug#363061: tetex-extra: palatcm.sty is non-free
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:51 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > > But you seem to be the person who has the clearest understanding of what > the mess is, and where files are dispersed. Now that we've established > that the thing is non-free - could you provide a list of them, so that > we can remove them? Sure. And I'll try to document how to find such things. Starting point is /usr/share/texmf-tetex/tex/latex/palatcm/palatcm.sty. In there different symbol fonts for the font family 'pplcm' are defined with encodings OT1, OML, OMS, and OMX. In order to use these font families, LaTeX will look for files named .fd. All these files are in the same directory, and that's all that is there: $ ls /usr/share/texmf-tetex/tex/latex/palatcm/ omlpplcm.fd omspplcm.fd omxpplcm.fd ot1pplcm.fd palatcm.sty These files define the mapping between LaTeX fonts names and TeX (virtual) fonts. The following TeX (virtual) fonts are referred to: zpplcmrm zpplcmbm zpplcmry zpplcmby zpplcmrv zpplcmr zpplcmb dlocate tells me that for each of these virtual fonts there is a TFM and a VF file in /usr/share/texmf-tetex/fonts/tfm/adobe/mathppl/ and /usr/share/texmf-tetex/fonts/vf/adobe/mathppl/, respectively. Now we could look into these virtual fonts with, eg, vftovp $(kpsewhich zpplcmby.vf) $(kpsewhich zpplcmby.tfm) | less to see what fonts are used in there (cmbsy10 and pzcmi8r=Zapf Chancery in this case). It might be, that palatcm contained other fonts that are used here. However, this is not the case. These virtual fonts use CM and PSNFSS fonts only. I did not find any documentation for palatcm.sty. Summary, the following directories (relative to TEXMFDIST) have to be removed together with their content: fonts/tfm/adobe/mathppl fonts/vf/adobe/mathppl tex/latex/palatcm cheerio ralf
Bug#363061: tetex-extra: palatcm.sty is non-free
On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 14:08 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> The other instances of \DeclareFontShape don't point to a font? Like
>
> \DeclareFontShape{OMS}{pplcm}{l}{n}{<->ssub * pplcm/m/n}{}
>
> Is this just a declaration to substitute pplcm/l/n with pplcm/m/n?
Yes, this is a (silent) substitution of one font with another one. Note
that this is still at the level of LaTeX's NFSS, not at the level of
(virtual) TeX fonts.
cheerio
ralf
PS: Looking into virtual fonts is much easier than what I wrote in my
last mail. 'vftovp zpplcmb | less' is enough, since vftovp uses
kpsewhich and adds .vf and an equally named tfm file all by itself.
Some tools are just to intelligent ...
Bug#366505: tetex-base: Contains undistributable unmodifiable file: ntimes.sty
Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Die, 09 Mai 2006, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> /usr/share/texmf-tetex/tex/cslatex/ntimes.sty shipped by tetex-base
>> (according to http://packages.debian.org/, it is still in 3.0-17)
>> seems not to be redistributable; it says:
>>
>> %% IMPORTANT NOTICE:
>> %%
>> %% For the copyright see the source file.
>> %%
>> %% You are *not* allowed to modify this file.
>> %%
>> %% You are *not* allowed to distribute this file.
>> %% For distribution of the original source see
>> %% the terms for copying and modification in the file cspsfont.doc.
This also applies to other files in /usr/share/texmf-tetex/tex/cslatex/,
namely nhelvet.sty and cspsfont.{il2,tex,xl2}.
> Interesting, especially since README-cspsfont which is the accompanying
> README mentions GPL v2 or later (although in czech as far as I
> understand).
On CTAN there is CTAN:macros/cstex/license.eng which also mentiones GPL
for cspsfonts. This does require further investigation, though. The tar
ball CTAN:macros/cstex/base/cspsfonts.tar.gz does not contain the source
file cspsfont.doc.
It does contain some of the font metrics that Frank and I were talking
about in another thread. :-)
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
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#367559: tetex-base: Package cannot be installed: fmtutil failed
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 22:16 -0400, Loris Bennett wrote:
> Package: tetex-base
> Version: 3.0-17
> Severity: critical
Thanks for reporting. Let's limit this to where the actual error occurs:
> fmtutil: running `pdfetex -ini -jobname=cont-en -progname=context
> -translate-file=cp227.tcx *cont-en.ini' ...
> This is pdfeTeX, Version 3.141592-1.21a-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.4) (INITEX)
> (/usr/share/texmf-tetex/web2c/cp227.tcx)
> entering extended mode
> (/usr/share/texmf-tetex/tex/context/config/cont-en.ini
> (/usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/cont-en.tex
> (/usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/context.tex
[many more files]
> (/usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/symb-nav.tex))
> This package is based on Plain TeX. It uses an adapted version of the
> extended mark mechanism of J. Fox (1987) and a few parts of the sidefloat
> mechanism of D. Comenetz (1993). Most of D.E. Knuth's Plain TeX
> (3.1415926) is available and can be used without problems. This package
> uses TaBlE, a package designed and copyrighted by M.J. Wichura (1988).
> Only a few auxiliary files are generated, of which some must be processed
> by TeXUtil (1998.12.20). The current blockversion is 1996.03.10.
>
> Copyright 1990-2006 / PRAGMA ADE / J. Hagen - A.F. Otten
You have installed a recent ConTeXt in /usr/share/texmf/tex/context/,
right? All the files that are loaded above are not part of tetex-base.
And at the first file that is loaded from tetex-base (after the ini
file), an error occurs:
> )
> system : cont-usr loaded
> (/usr/share/texmf-tetex/tex/context/config/cont-usr.tex
> language : patterns for nl not loaded
> language : patterns for fr not loaded
> language : patterns for de not loaded
> language : patterns for it not loaded
> language : patterns for hr not loaded
> language : patterns for pl not loaded
> language : patterns for cz not loaded
> language : patterns for sk not loaded
> ! Undefined control sequence.
> \??la \s!sl
>\c!status
> \doifdefinedelse #1->\edef \p!defined {#1
> }\ifcsname \detokenize [EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
[...]
I have no idea what this error means, but most likely the old cont-usr.tex
from tetex-base is incompatible with the new ConTeXt files you installed
in /usr/share/texmf/. I don't think this is a bug in teTeX. ;-) Is there
no cont-usr.tex in the new ConTeXt? That one should take precedence over
the one in /usr/share/texmf-tetex/.
cheerio
ralf
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Bug#353474: tetex-bin: Fails to install]
I just realized that I had forgotten to send this to the appropriate bug in the BTS. cheerio ralf - Forwarded message from Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - From: Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Bug#353474: tetex-bin: Fails to install To: debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:29:25 +0100 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 tests=AWL=-1.036,BAYES_50=0.001 autolearn=ham Mail-Followup-To: debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 16:36 +0100, Frank Küster wrote: > tetex-doc-nonfree is a separate source package with no connection to > tetex-src. BTW, where is tetex-src maintained? I can't find it in the debian-tex (or pkg-tetex) SVN. > On the other hand, if there are sources for non-free > documents in tetex-src, we need to remove them (and probably should copy > them to tetex-doc-nonfree). But I don't think this will be the case, > because the documents created from dtx files are probably all free, and > others are not included in tetex-src AFAICT. Unfortunately not: ~$ dlocate l2kurz tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/lkurz/README.l2kurz tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/lkurz/l2kurz.pdf tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/lkurz/l2kurz.tex tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/lkurz/l2kurz2.pdf tetex-doc-nonfree: /usr/share/doc/texmf/latex/general/l2kurz.pdf.gz [There are more files in /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/lkurz/.] ~$ dlocate l2tabu tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/l2tabu tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/l2tabu/german tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/l2tabu/german/l2tabu.tex tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/l2tabu/english tetex-src: /usr/share/texmf/source/latex/l2tabu/english/l2tabuen.tex tetex-doc-nonfree: /usr/share/doc/texmf/latex/general/l2tabuen.pdf.gz tetex-doc-nonfree: /usr/share/doc/texmf/latex/general/l2tabu.pdf.gz tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/help/Catalogue/entries/l2tabu-english.html tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/help/Catalogue/entries/l2tabu-italian.html tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/help/Catalogue/entries/l2tabu.html tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/help/Catalogue/entries/l2tabu-french.html [The cataloge entries are of course free.] ~$ dlocate /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual tetex-doc-nonfree: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual tetex-doc-nonfree: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/pdftex-a.pdf.gz tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/Makefile tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/makefiles.cmd tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/pdftex-i.tex tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/pdftex-t.tex.gz tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/pdftex-t.txt tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/pdftex-w.tex tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/README tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/syntaxform.awk tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/pdftex-syntax.txt.gz [Here the source is in tetex-doc instead of tetex-src.] cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] - End forwarded message -
Bug#345604: tetex-doc-nonfree
Hi Norbert, hi all, Most of the work on tetex-doc-nonfree was done before the GR on GFDL. At that time, it seemed pretty clear that any GFDL licensed document would have to go to non-free. Most of the discussion is in #345604. After the unexpected outcome of the GR, I am not sure if we should jump to conclusions already and move the files back. On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 09:22 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Mon, 03 Apr 2006, Norbert Preining wrote: > > . Why is fontinstallationguide in tetex-doc-nonfree? In TeX live there > > is a source code which is GFDL/Debian [1]. Maybe it is not the > > exact source code? Then it would be better to compile this source code > > and include the output, or? Here we have the additional problem that the PDF uses non-free fonts. > To add one: pdftex-a.pdf is GFDL/Debian, so we shold get the source of > it and should be able to distribute it, too. teTeX does contain the sources: $ dlocate pdftex-t.tex tetex-doc: /usr/share/doc/texmf/pdftex/manual/pdftex-t.tex.gz cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#345604: Moving GFDL/Debian free documents back
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 13:53 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Most of the work on tetex-doc-nonfree was done before the GR on GFDL. At > > that time, it seemed pretty clear that any GFDL licensed document would > > have to go to non-free. Most of the discussion is in #345604. After the > > unexpected outcome of the GR, I am not sure if we should jump to > > conclusions already and move the files back. > > What else do you suggest? Do you expect any statement (e.g. by > ftp-master) with respect to "GFDL/Debian free" documents? > > Technically speaking, I don't think there's a good reason to keep them > out of tetex-doc (and they are still in the tetex-base tarball, which is > not yet repackaged). I would have suggested to wait a bit until the dust has settled. ;-) But I don't claim to understand the inner workings of Debian in all details. I am not opposing moving back GFDL/Debian free docs. cheerio ralf
Bug#375642: texlive-base-bin: Cannot install - missing texlive-common package.
Adam Szojda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Package: texlive-base-bin > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable > > Hello. > > TeXLive can't be installed on debian/unstable because texlive-common is > missing: Thanks for the report. texlive-common is part of texlive-base, which had been waiting in NEW untill yesterday. Meanwhile it has been accepted, hence texlive-common and therefore all other texlive packages should be installable. Could you try again? Thanks. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#379089: Configuration file shadowed?
On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 18:12 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> foo.tex (or foo.sty in most cases) is indeed a library equivalent, but
> we are rather discussing whether an additional foo.cfg or foo.whatever
> that is loaded by foo.sty is a configuration file or not.
>
> I've come across at least one example where it is:
>
> \ProvidesFile{listings.cfg}[2004/09/05 1.3 listings configuration]
> \def\lstlanguagefiles
> {lstlang0.sty,lstlang1.sty,lstlang2.sty,lstlang3.sty}
>
> If you have created a local lstlang4.sty, you have to enter it here.
> Such a file should be treated as a conf(iguration) file, I think.
I am not sure if this is a particular good example, since listings also
reads certain local configuration files. See page 44 of the listings
documentation. However, I think the general distinction between files
used for site-wide configuration and those used for specific documents/
projects is appropriate in this context. Even though I don't know off
hand any file that would fall in the first category.
> ,
> | Files that are used to modify the behavior of executables must be
> | treated as any other configuration file in a Debian package. However,
> | files that are used to control the typeset output - the appearance of
> | documents - need not be treated as configuration files. It is up to
> | the maintainer of the package to decide which files make sense to be
> | used for site-wide (as opposed to per-project or per-document)
> | customization.
> |
> | A typical case for a site-wide configuration file is a file
> | that must be changed if a style file should use additional
> | modules (installed, for example, into TEXMFLOCAL). Options
> | that only control document output are rather used for a
> | particular document or documentation project and should
> | usually not be installed as a configuration file.
> `
Sounds good.
cheerio
ralf
Bug#388115: tetex-base: postinst fails, can not upgrade
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 11:00 +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote: > > Relevant log message seems to be: > > (/usr/share/texmf-tetex/tex/latex/base/latex.ltx > ! LaTeX must be made using an initex with no format preloaded. > l.78 ... using an initex with no format preloaded} This happens after fmtutil calls etex -ini -jobname=jadetex -progname=jadetex &latex jadetex.ini This *looks* as if 'jadetex.ini' has been updated to the new form, while the fmtutil.cnf snippets have not. Either because these are conffiles and the local admins did not accept the change (not a bug), or because the most recent jadetex upload missed that change (jadetex bug). However, Frans and Sean, please answer these questions: > The other errors just seems to be subsequent. > 1. Which version of jadetex package do you use? > 2. What gives you "ls -l /etc/texmf/fmt.d"? > 3. Please send us files containing "jade" in its names. Then I can stop guessing ... BTW, did anybody see the original bug report via the mailing list? cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388115: tetex-base: postinst fails, can not upgrade
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 23:46 +0400, Norbert Preining wrote: > On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:07:33 +0200 "Frans Pop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Looks like the 40jadetex.cnf.dpkg-new is there because jadetex cannot jet > >be configured and so the old version of the config file is still used. > > Yes, this is true, it seems to be like this. BUT: Why is the snippet > at all included in the fmtutil.cnf file??? The new update-* code ??? > added (who was it?) should make sure that the snippets with a > .dpkg-new file are *not* included. I wondered about that, too. > So could it be that tetex-* doesnt call update-fmtutil at the > beginning of the postinst script? this would explain why this > happened, at least this is my semi-qualified opinion from the > crystal-ball ... Your crystal ball is good. Where did you get it? Anyway, it is indeed the case that tetex-base.postinst does not call update-fmtutil before caling fmtutil-sys, which is probably wrong. > Ahh yes Ralf: I assume that the original bug report did go to the > maintainer. But this is a bug against tetex-base. An debian-tex-maint is the maintainer of that package. We have had theproblem before. Typically with large messages. Unfortunately the latter are typical when building formats fails and people do what they are told, ie include the log file. Oh well ... > What I dont understand is why the NMU is numbered -7? The last jadetex upload wasn't an NMU. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388399: Processed: Re: Bug#388399: gnuplot: FTBFS
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:55 +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > >> reassign 388399 tetex-bin > > Bug#388399: "mktexmf: line 92: mf31966.tmp: Permission denied" on alpha, > > mips and mipsel > > Bug reassigned from package `gnuplot' to `tetex-bin'. > > Hm. It's not a general mipsel/alpha/mips problem. At least in the sid > chroot on vaughan, a mipsel box, the command (mktextfm ecrm1728) works > just fine. I won't have time to investigate this further, but I suspect > that the underlying problem is that on the buildds, e.g. in > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=gnuplot&ver=4.0.0-5&arch=alpha&stamp=1158062374&file=log&as=raw > > mktextmf tries to create the file in a TEXMF tree rooted in the current > directory (/home/buildd/.texmf-var) instead of the varfonts tree in > /tmp. Maybe the home directory just doesn't exist. The strange thing is that mktexmf, which is called here, looks like this: [...] destdir=`echo "$MT_MFNAME" | sed 's%/[^/][^/]*$%%'` test -d "$destdir" || "$MT_MKTEXDIR" "$destdir" || exit 1 cd "$destdir" || exit 1 [...] cat > "mf$$.tmp" <$STDOUT echo "$progname: $destdir/$mfname: successfully generated." >&2 "$MT_MKTEXUPD" "$destdir" "$mfname" [...] >From the succesfull messages at the end of mktexmf we know that $destdir was /home/buildd/.texmf-var/fonts/source/jknappen/ec/, which must have existed otherwise the script would have been terminated before. So at first sight it looks as if $destdir was created but without write permissions. No idea why that could happen. cheerio ralf > This may be a problem with the configuration on the buildds, we'd need > the output of > > kpsewhich --format='web2c files' mktex.cnf > > as well as the file contents of the resulting filename, on the buildd. > I'm formally on vacation and only able to write this mail out of sheer > luck, and won't be able to work on that in the next days. [full-quote for the BTS]
Bug#388115: Here's my patch, any comments?
Frank Küster wrote: >purge) > +update-texmf Shouldn't that be update-texmf || true ? The rest looks fine to me. cheerio ralf
Bug#389584: tex-common: file confict with latex-ucs
Willi Mann wrote: > Package: tex-common > Version: 0.28 > Severity: serious > Justification: file (directory) conflict, breaks upgrade > > Sorry for german, but with today's upgrade run I got: > > Entpacke Ersatz für tex-common ... > dpkg: Fehler beim Bearbeiten von > /var/cache/apt/archives/tex-common_0.29_all.deb (--unpack): > versuche „/usr/share/texmf/doc“ zu überschreiben, welches auch in Paket > latex-ucs-doc ist > > /usr/share/texmf/doc is a directory in package latex-ucs-doc, but a > symlink in tex-common 0.29. > > So IMHO tex-common should conflict (replace?) with latex-ucs-doc and > latex-ucs-doc should change the location of the documentation. This is actually a bug in latex-ucs-doc not in tex-common which has been reported (#388376 and #388407) before. It is fixed in latex-ucs 20041017-6. If I interpret latex-ucs's changelog correctly, this problem was introduced in version 20041017-4 uploaded on 2006-09-10. Matrin, is that correct? I am not sure if we need a versioned conflict or replace to cover such a case. Other oppinions? cheerio ralf
Bug#390129: tetex-base: Does not properly call update-* scripts
Frank Küster wrote: > The assumption above is wrong, or at least short-sighted. updmap-sys > and fmtutil-sys can only be called when tetex-bin is there. However, we > *must* call the update script under all circumstances. Otherwise > tetex-bin will be without language information etc. I wonder how this > slipped through... I don't understand. Shouldn't tetex-bin call the update-* scripts before generating formats/map files/... [Looking into common.functions.in] It seems it doesn't. IMO that's the bigger problem. But then, calling the update-* scripts should be safe at any time. However, now there is an unconditional call to mktexlsr in tetex-base's postinst jusst before the update-* scripts are called. IMO this is unsafe (tetx-bin might not be installed) an unnecessary (the update-* scripts don't use kpathsearching). cheerio ralf
Bug#390129: tetex-base: Does not properly call update-* scripts
Frank Küster wrote: > Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I don't understand. Shouldn't tetex-bin call the update-* scripts before >> generating formats/map files/... >> >> [Looking into common.functions.in] >> >> It seems it doesn't. IMO that's the bigger problem. > > I think every package that installs snippets for language.dat, > updmap.cfg, etc., should call update-foo. That's the clean way. Agreed in principle (see below). However, I think it is also important that every package that calls fmtutil/updmap/... has to call the apropriate update-* scripts before, which tetex-bin does not at the moment. Just imagine that instead of tetex-base it would have been tetex-bin that got updated together with jadetex recently: tetex-bin's postinst regenerates formats, but the present fmtutil.cnf still represents the state valid before the changes to jadtex.ini. The same failure as with tetex-base would occur. If tetex-bin's postinst would call update-format, the problematic lines would not be present in fmtutil.cnf due to the present .dpkg-new file. >> But then, calling the update-* scripts should be safe at any time. >> However, now there is an unconditional call to mktexlsr in tetex-base's >> postinst jusst before the update-* scripts are called. IMO this is >> unsafe (tetx-bin might not be installed) > > Indeed; it will just fail if tetex-bin isn't installed, which I noticed > during testing. It's already fixed in my local copy and the upload I > made, and I just committed it. Good. A general point: Recently I was thinking whether it would make sense to change the behaviour of 'format providing packages' such as tetex-base or jadetex: Right now they regerenate all formats, even though this is not necessary. Why not have them regenerate only those formats they actually provide? A simple way to achieve this would be to call fmtutil-sys --all --cnffile /etc/texmf/fmt.d/foo.cnf That way these packages would be more self contained and could not get as easily broken by other packages. Of course, the 'binary providing packages' such as tetex-bin would still have to regenerate all formats. cheerio ralf
Bug#388399: FTBFS problems on alpha, mips[el]: Please help debugging
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 18:12 +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Frank Küster wrote: > > Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > So, if I understand that correctly, the bug was fixed by running mktexmf > > > as non-root, and the change of the cache location is only a collateral. > > > > No, or I do not understand what you mean. > > I meant the the earlier security bug you mentioned. To me, the solution > for the earlier bug as well as the current one looks like keeping the > font cache in /var but maintaining it via a mktexmf user. The problem is that mktexmf is a shell script (=no suid possible) that is started with the rights of the user. So the former solution required all users that wanted to use TeX to have write access below /var/cache/fonts. In addition for buildds the default now-questions- asked installation had to have directories below /var/cache/fonts with world write access. We had a system to restrict these rights to some group, but the debconf question and code were quite complicated and confused many users. cheerio ralf
Bug#390129: Rebuilding only provided formats - will that work?
Frank Küster wrote: > Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hi Ralf, hi Norbert, > > Still no answer... Sorry, this message got pushed pack to deeply due to some email troubles I had during the last few days. Never reboot the wrong server without thinking :-( >>> Should we just go on and let tetex-base's and tetex-extra's postinst >>> call >>> >>> create_tetex_formats --all --cnffile /etc/texmf/fmt.d/01tetex.cnf >>> >>> I think that would help, too, at least with jadetex and friends. >> >> There's an other potential problem here. If a new tetex-base contains a >> change that requires the LaTeX formats to be regenerated, it might well >> be that other formats that preload LaTeX during format generation also >> need to be rebuilt. The same then is also true for a TeXlive based >> system. Why should they have to be rebuild? It sure would be better if they were rebuild so that they can use the new and shiny features of the new LaTeX :-), but the old format should work just as well. >> But somehow this seems to be a more general problem. Even a format that >> does not preload LaTeX might become unusable, and it might even require >> configuration file changes before it works again. Just imagine that it >> turns out that some hyphenation patterns are non-free and need to be >> removed. A package that keeps its own language.dat won't work any >> more. IIRC hyphenation patterns are also stored within the format. Hence the format using the now non-free patterns should still work. It would of course still use these patterns, even though they are no longer installed. >> So should we simply ignore such potential problems, and go on with using >> --cnffile during format renewal? Or rather try to recreate all of them? >> We should also consider what the effect would have been for jadetex or >> xmltex users on the previous frequent bugs if we had already only >> regenerated our own formats. Hm, I guess they mostly were related to >> changes in tetex-bin, weren't they? Yes, I think the main problems where due to the change in engine and the related 'efmt' -> 'fmt' stuff. cheerio ralf
Bug#441526: lmodern: updmap-sys failed.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 17:18 +0200, Norbert Preining wrote: > > But in your case > > !!! ERROR! The map file `dvips35.map' has not been found at all. > this is strange, because dvips35.map IS present, because > texlive-base-bin is unpacked. > > It seems that the problem is that it cannot be FOUND by kpsewhich by the > time updmap-sys is run. I would guess that dvips35.map is not in the ls-R files yet since texlive has not been configured. lmodern (and other font packages) only update /usr/share/texmf/ls-R and /var/lib/texmf/ls-R. Looks like to much optimization. :-( cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#400930: texlive-omega: should conflict with aleph
Package: texlive-omega Version: 2005.dfsg.2-4 Severity: serious texlive-omega provides a binary named aleph in /usr/bin. The same is true for the package aleph. The right fix for this would be packaging AFNIX (#379564), which supersedes the aleph programming language provided by the aleph package. This would remove this filename conflict. However, nobody has claimed AFNIX's RFP yet and aleph has been orphaned some time ago (#374120). Hence texlive-omega should do the same as tetex-bin does already, ie, conflict with aleph (<< 1:0). cheerio ralf -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.1 Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-thinkpad Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#421242: system run out of memory while building formats
Rafal Czlonka wrote: > Package: texlive-base-bin > Version: 2007-5 > Severity: critical > > Hi, > When the postinst script runs and it comes to 'Building formats', after > several minutes of doing so, the system runs out of memory. The process > "eats" all the available memory, both phisical (512MB RAM) and virtual > (1GB swap). After that the system simply freezes and is unrecoverable. Do you have xmltex installed? If yes, then this is a (well known and often reported) problem in xmltex. Solution: Remove xmltex, install texlive-base-bin, reinstall xmltex. cheerio ralf
Bug#421242: system run out of memory while building formats
reassign xmltex forcemerge 421242 419987 thanks Rafal Czlonka wrote: > Ralf Stubner wrote: >> Do you have xmltex installed? If yes, then this is a (well known and >> often >> reported) problem in xmltex. Solution: Remove xmltex, install >> texlive-base-bin, reinstall xmltex. > > Thanks for the tip mate. You are welcome. cheerio ralf
Bug#421969: texlive-base-bin: Huge number of etex and pdfetex sub-processes created
Pierre Barbier de Reuille wrote: > Package: texlive-base-bin > Version: 2007-7 > Followup-For: Bug #421969 Why do you think this is related to #421969? > While trying to upgrade this package, a huge number of etex and pdfetex > sub-processes were created. Probably hundreds of them ! It ate all my > memory (i.e. more than 2GB of RAM) and I had to kill them by hand to > regain control over my computer. Obviously, the install then fails. This looks like #419987 and co. Do you have xmltex installed? Which version? cheerio ralf
Bug#421969: texlive-base-bin: Huge number of etex and pdfetex sub-processes created
Norbert Preining wrote: > I guess we can close this bug? Do you agree? Careful; Pierre posted to a (probably unrelated) existing bug. cheerio ralf
Bug#382752: texlive-base-bin: can's install
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 13:18 +0800, LI Daobing wrote: > Package: texlive-base-bin > Version: 2005.dfsg.1-1 > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable > > following is the log, /tmp/texlive.fmtutil.JAo16966 in attachment Thanks for the report. For debugging please send us the output of the follwowing commands: ls -l /etc/texmf/fmt.d/ dpkg -l jadetex texlive-* cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#382861: installing texlive over tetex fails
On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 23:51 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > Package: texlive > Version: 2005.dfsg.1-1 > Severity: grave > Justification: renders package unusable Thanks for your report. > --- > Настраивается пакет texlive-base-bin (2005.dfsg.1-1) ... > Running mktexlsr. This may take some time... done. > Building format(s) --all . This may take some time... > fmtutil-sys failed. Output has been stored in > /tmp/texlive.fmtutil.dtq18928 > Please include this file if you report a bug. > Please send us this file. > I think that this happened because of some configuration files left > from the tetex installation in /etc/texmf/fmt.d Possible. Please send us the output of the following commands: ls -l /etc/texmf/fmt.d ls -l /var/lib/tex-common/fmtutil-cnf/ cheerio ralf
Bug#382861: installing texlive over tetex fails
Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:05:52AM +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 23:51 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: >> > Package: texlive >> > Version: 2005.dfsg.1-1 >> > Severity: grave >> > Justification: renders package unusable >> >> Thanks for your report. >> >> > --- >> > Настраивается пакет texlive-base-bin (2005.dfsg.1-1) ... >> > Running mktexlsr. This may take some time... done. >> > Building format(s) --all . This may take some time... >> > fmtutil-sys failed. Output has been stored in >> > /tmp/texlive.fmtutil.dtq18928 >> > Please include this file if you report a bug. >> > >> >> Please send us this file. > > Unfortunately, I cannot do it now... I did not copy it from /tmp/ to a > safer place so it was removed after a reboot. But I have looked > through it several times and I recall that all the formats supplied > with the base installation of texlive were built without any errors. > The only error message was about omega format which is not in the base > installation of texlive but was included in the teTeX distro. > I copied that message to the bug report. I am afraid this is the only > information that I can provide by now, I am sorry. This is quite unfortunate. Update tests teTeX -> TeX Live belong to the usual testing procedure that Norbert (main TeX Live maintainer) is doing. So it would be interesting which special situation occurred on your system. > Another thing that can be useful is that the version of tetex I had > was from the stable distro (i.e. 2.0.2c-8). This, however, is very interesting and might well be the special situation mentioned above. Do I understand you correctly that you were running a testing system with teTeX from stable and then tried to update that to TeX Live from unstable? If so, then this update path is currently not supported. Whether or not it will be supported for Sarge->Etch once Etch gets released hasn't been decided yet. >> > I think that this happened because of some configuration files left >> > from the tetex installation in /etc/texmf/fmt.d >> >> Possible. Please send us the output of the following commands: >> >> ls -l /etc/texmf/fmt.d >> ls -l /var/lib/tex-common/fmtutil-cnf/ > > This will not have much sense now because to get texlive working I had > to purge all the remainings of tetex. But again I remember that in > /etc/texmf/fmt.d there was a config file of teTeX that mentioned omega > format. When I purged remainings of all tetex-* packages manually > (dpkg --force-depends --purge) and installed texlive packages anew > everything went without any errors. Again very unfortunate. > By the way, another question about omega. [...] > I did not install texlive-omega. dpkg -S ebcdic.ocp says > texlive-base: /usr/share/texmf-texlive/omega/ocp/misc/ebcdic.ocp I don't have my development machine here, so I can't check this. Are the other files from texlive-base, too? cheerio ralf
Bug#382861: [Fwd: Re: Bug#382861: installing texlive over tetex fails]
Stanislav, please also CC the bug report itself. Following the Reply-To header should do this automatically. This way all relevant information is archived and the other people from the Debian TeX are informed, too. cheerio ralf Original Message Subject: Re: Bug#382861: installing texlive over tetex fails Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:45:13 +0400 From: Stanislav Maslovski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hello, On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 10:05:52AM +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 23:51 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > > Package: texlive > > Version: 2005.dfsg.1-1 > > Severity: grave > > Justification: renders package unusable > > Thanks for your report. > > > --- > > Настраивается пакет texlive-base-bin (2005.dfsg.1-1) ... > > Running mktexlsr. This may take some time... done. > > Building format(s) --all . This may take some time... > > fmtutil-sys failed. Output has been stored in > > /tmp/texlive.fmtutil.dtq18928 > > Please include this file if you report a bug. > > > > Please send us this file. Unfortunately, I cannot do it now... I did not copy it from /tmp/ to a safer place so it was removed after a reboot. But I have looked through it several times and I recall that all the formats supplied with the base installation of texlive were built without any errors. The only error message was about omega format which is not in the base installation of texlive but was included in the teTeX distro. I copied that message to the bug report. I am afraid this is the only information that I can provide by now, I am sorry. Another thing that can be useful is that the version of tetex I had was from the stable distro (i.e. 2.0.2c-8). > > I think that this happened because of some configuration files left > > from the tetex installation in /etc/texmf/fmt.d > > Possible. Please send us the output of the following commands: > > ls -l /etc/texmf/fmt.d > ls -l /var/lib/tex-common/fmtutil-cnf/ This will not have much sense now because to get texlive working I had to purge all the remainings of tetex. But again I remember that in /etc/texmf/fmt.d there was a config file of teTeX that mentioned omega format. When I purged remainings of all tetex-* packages manually (dpkg --force-depends --purge) and installed texlive packages anew everything went without any errors. By the way, another question about omega. In /usr/share/texmf-texlive there is a dir omega with the following content (ls -lR): omega: итого 0 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 72 2006-08-13 23:18 ocp drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 72 2006-08-13 23:18 otp omega/ocp: итого 0 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 104 2006-08-13 23:18 misc omega/ocp/misc: итого 8 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1112 2000-03-31 13:54 ebcdic.ocp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 56 2000-08-14 03:21 id.ocp omega/otp: итого 0 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 104 2006-08-13 23:18 misc omega/otp/misc: итого 8 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1629 2000-03-31 13:54 ebcdic.otp -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 44 2000-08-14 03:21 id.otp Are these files needed at all? Maybe they were included by a mistake? I have installed the following texlive packages: texlive texlive-base texlive-base-bin texlive-common texlive-context texlive-doc-base texlive-doc-en texlive-fonts-recommended texlive-lang-cyrillic texlive-latex-base texlive-latex-recommended texlive-metapost texlive-pdfetex texlive-pictures texlive-publishers I did not install texlive-omega. dpkg -S ebcdic.ocp says texlive-base: /usr/share/texmf-texlive/omega/ocp/misc/ebcdic.ocp -- Станислав
Bug#382861: installing texlive over tetex fails
retitle 382861 Please allow update from Sarge's teTeX severity 382861 normal thanks On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 14:38 +0400, Stanislav Maslovski wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:10:59PM +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote: > [ ... ] > > > Another thing that can be useful is that the version of tetex I had > > > was from the stable distro (i.e. 2.0.2c-8). > > > > This, however, is very interesting and might well be the special > > situation mentioned above. Do I understand you correctly that you were > > running a testing system with teTeX from stable and then tried to update > > that to TeX Live from unstable? > > Yes, I am running a partially updated system (sarge + etch) with many > of the user-level packages from etch and most of the system-level from sarge. > I have a few packages from sid also. And that works normally? I am surprised. Anyway, I am retitleing this bug and lowering its severity for the time being, since this is just not supported. We might enable an update from Sarge's teTeX, though. > > I don't have my development machine here, so I can't check this. Are the > > other files from texlive-base, too? > > Yes, they are: > > $ grep /usr/share/texmf-texlive/omega /var/lib/dpkg/info/texlive-base.list [...] This looks a bit odd, indeed. These files come from misc.tpm. I leave this for Norbert to see what can be done about this. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#382752: texlive-base-bin: can's install
severity 382752 normal thanks On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 17:58 +0800, LI Daobing wrote: > On 8/14/06, Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sun, Aug 13, 2006 at 13:18 +0800, LI Daobing wrote: > >> Package: texlive-base-bin > >> Version: 2005.dfsg.1-1 > >> Severity: grave > >> Justification: renders package unusable > >> > >> following is the log, /tmp/texlive.fmtutil.JAo16966 in attachment > > > >Thanks for the report. For debugging please send us the output of the > >follwowing commands: > > > >ls -l /etc/texmf/fmt.d/ > >dpkg -l jadetex texlive-* > > > > Hello, > > Because I can't live with a broken tex system, so after I reportbug > this bug, I purge all the packages depend on texlive-base-bin and > texlive-base-bin. then reinstall texlive-base-bin. and now everything > works well. Do you remeber which packages you purged? The failure occured when trying to build the jadetex format. At least now you do not have jadetex installed (state purged). Did you have it installed somewhen in the past? When did you remove it? When did you purge it? > you can close this bug if you want. I am only downgrading it for the time being. Maybe we can find out a few things still. > anyway, what you required: [...] Thanks. Unfortunately that does no longer help all that much. But see above. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#396002: tetex-bin: fails to install
On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 12:20 +0100, Peter Weiss wrote: [...] > This is a summary of all `failed' messages and warnings: > `pdfetex -ini -jobname=latex -progname=latex -translate-file=cp227.tcx > *latex.ini' possibly failed. > `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex > -translate-file=cp227.tcx *pdflatex.ini' possibly failed. > > fmtutil-sys failed. Output has been stored in: > /tmp/tetex.format_creation.PGl27246/fmtutil-sys.log > Please include this file if you report a bug. Please send us this file. Thanks. cheerio ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
