Bug#861748: r-cran-rmpi: Loading library fails

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 5:42 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > I think I found it. Do an 'apt-get install libopenmpi-dev' and it will work. I was about to write that 'pkg-config --libs ompi' produces an error and that there is no libmpi.so on my system. After installing

Bug#861748: r-cran-rmpi: Loading library fails

Package: r-cran-rmpi Version: 0.6-6-3 Severity: grave Justification: renders package unusable Dear Maintainer, When I try to load the Rmpi library, it fails with an error about a missing shared object file: $ LANG=C Rscript -e "library(Rmpi)" libmpi.so: cannot open shared object file: No such

Bug#694323: Bug#694324: Bug#694323: [gsfonts] Fonts include copyrighted adobe fragment all right reserved

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES roucaries.bast...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Ralf Stubner ralf.stub...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote: Wait ... I am not sure either. Maybe fontfoge *also

Bug#694323: Bug#694324: Bug#694323: [gsfonts] Fonts include copyrighted adobe fragment all right reserved

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Norbert Preining prein...@logic.at wrote: Wait ... I am not sure either. Maybe fontfoge *also* contains and adds this code ... I just found the text in the sources of lmodern. For the record: Yes, fontforge does contain the code from Adobe. However, it is

Bug#512903: tex-common - Fails on purge: subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 20

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 22:26 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: Package: tex-common Version: 1.11.3 Severity: serious Automatic build of tuxguitar_1.0.dak-1 on lxdebian.bfinv.de by sbuild/s390 98 [...] Selecting previously deselected package tex-common. Unpacking tex-common (from

Bug#512903: tex-common - Fails on purge: subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 20

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:16 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: The warnings during install did go away, but during remove, I now get this instead: Removing tex-common ... Purging configuration files for tex-common ... *** ERROR: Need exactly two arguments, got 1 Debian GNU/Linux ucf $Revision:

Bug#486162: texlive-base-bin: tcfmgr.map and fmtutil.cnf missing

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 16:17 +0200, Alexander Heinlein wrote: Frank Küster wrote: Alexander Heinlein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: /tmp/fmtutil.QIq31264 contains: warning: kpathsea: No usable entries in /var/lib/texmf/ls-R. Hm, what is the output of ls -l /var/lib/texmf/ls-R

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

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#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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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#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

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

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

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

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

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

Bug#382861: [Fwd: Re: Bug#382861: installing texlive over tetex fails]

: 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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: whatever %Created by: tex fontplcm %Created using fontinst v1.335 BTW, the corresponding

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

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

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

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

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/

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

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 v3.7h and hyphenation

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

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

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

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 |

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

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. argument @pdfimage xe-arch.fig.pdf [...] Output written on glade_ug.dvi (11 pages, 18936 bytes). Transcript written on glade_ug.log.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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