Your message dated Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:55:07 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Removed
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--- Begin Message ---
Package: passivetex
Severity: serious
Version: 1.25-2
The package has two serious bugs, and some normal ones:
1. The package has in its postinst the line:
/usr/bin/fmtutil --cnffile /usr/share/tetex-bin/fmtutil.cnf --all > /dev/null
2>&1
Beside the fact that it should use fmtutil-sys as soon as teTeX-3.0 is
in testing, and that it should not prepend a path to the binary, it has
a major flaw:
It statically uses a template configuration file in
/usr/share/tetex-bin instead of the actual configuration file
(/var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf, a file generated from files in
/etc/texmf/fmt.d). This does not make any sense at all, and it
creates formats according to the tetex-bin package default instead of
local customization.
Furthermore, since passivetex is not listed anywhere in
/usr/share/tetex-bin/fmtutil.cnf, the line only recreates formats that
are already available anyway (created by tetex-bin's postinst script).
2. The postinst snippet below has the effect that if the local admin
deletes the configuration file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/96passivetex.cnf,
it is resurrected from the template file, which is a violation of
Policy 10.7.3:
if [ -f $conffile ] ; then
:
elif [ -f $conffile.disable ]; then
mv $conffile.disable $conffile
else
cp $TMPLDIR/`basename $conffile` $conffile
fi
Furthermore, there is no Policy or tradition that a configuration
file with suffix disable is treated specially. Therefore it might
well be that local admin renamed the configuration file manually to
$conffile.disable, and this would also be destroyed by this snippet.
As a sidenote, it seems as if this configuration file has not been
updated for years - the main_memory setting for passivetex is obviously
supposed to increase the available memory size for initex, but in fact
it is only half the size as the setting for all other programs.
3. In the prerm script, the configuration file discussed above is moved
to $conffile.disable. This is not necessary, since texmf variable
settings for programs that won't be run don't do any harm.
Furthermore, after this is done, the program update-fmtutil is
called, but for the change to have an effect update-texmf would be
needed. This is only of normal severity, but when it's fixed the
postrm script has to be adapted.
I don't know how passivetex is actually used, but the Makefile in the
examples directory calls xsltproc from the package of the same name,
without Depending on it, or listing it in Suggests/Recommends.
Regards, Frank
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-386
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This package has been removed because: "buggy, few users".
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
--- End Message ---
