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
libopenmpi-dev, both sympto
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 fi
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Bastien ROUCARIES
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Ralf Stubner wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Norbert Preining wrote:
>>> Wait ... I am not sure either. Maybe fontfoge *also* contains and
>>> adds this code ... I
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Norbert Preining 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 already possible now
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 $Rev
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 (f
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
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 FOU
Norbert Preining wrote:
> I guess we can close this bug? Do you agree?
Careful; Pierre posted to a (probably unrelated) existing bug.
cheerio
ralf
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
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
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
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.
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=cp2
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 o
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
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
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
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
Frank Küster wrote:
>purge)
> +update-texmf
Shouldn't that be
update-texmf || true
? The rest looks fine to me.
cheerio
ralf
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.
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,
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 ca
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
> &
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 ve
: 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:
>
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: re
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 (200
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 out
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
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 ha
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
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
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 in
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 origina
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:
>> %%
>> %% F
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) substit
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 t
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
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
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
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
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
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/
> >
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
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 hyphenat
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 "
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 Tex
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 Sec
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 a
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' f
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
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;
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/d
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.
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
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
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 (pdf
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 bui
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
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 erro
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 i
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, sin
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
64 matches
Mail list logo
