On 15.08.04 Osamu Aoki (osamu@debian.org) wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 19:51:31 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:

Hi *,

> > > Transcript written on pdflatex.log.
> > > fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.fmt installed.
> > > (Fatal format file error; I'm stymied)
> > > debiandoc2latexpdf: ERROR: reference.en.pdf could not be generated properly
> > > make[1]: *** [reference.en.pdf] Error 1
> > >
> > > I assume this has to do with the recent changes to tetex-bin, but I'm not
> > > really sure.
>
> Sigh :-( I am wondering how TeX/LaTeX folks feel about RC bugs on
> documentation packages due to recent TeX/LaTeX package situation.
> Look at Bug #265247 (or #265247), #265611, #264394, #263840, ... it
> ain't pretty sight.
>
Nope. Sorry for that! I guess, this is still the jadetex story
(didn't have a look at the bug logs). We didn't know, that jadetex
insists on having (pdf)latex.fmt generated, which was not done in
tetex 2.0.2-17.

> I do not feel like adding build script hack now to package just to
> get away for FTBFS serious bug unless TeX/LaTeX is stabilized. If
> anyone care to file a RC bug on Documentation package which build
> correctly in relatively recent testing and stable version of
> TeX/LaTeX, I think it is TeX/LaTeX important bug and it should be
> solved THERE.
>
If you speak about the jadetex story: It is fixed! Unfortunately the
upload was done with urgency low, so the broken version will stay in
testing for a while. But that shouldn't hurt the auto-builders.

> If people keep insisting these TeX/LaTeX caused FTBFS as RC, it only
> force package to ship without PS/PDF. No one gain.
>
ACK.

> I know TeX/LaTeX has been quite actively updated. IMHO, it should
> be very stable when FREEZE starts. But reality is not. If you
> think about TeX/LateX, it is like GCC for C program. We should not
> make major change with incompatibility at this late moment. But it
> happened.
>
It was stable! From our view it was nothing more than a design
decision to use e-TeX instead of Knuth TeX. We didn't know, that it
could break things.
Reason: Since February 2003 people are urged to do exactly that. It
will be the default in teTeX 3.0, which won't go into sarge. As we
were afraid, that stable users are behind the time until 2006 or
later (release of etch) we decided to do the switch. They will be
pissed of anyway, cause the teTeX in sarge is already now more than
1,5 years old. I'd rather would have seen an teTeX 2.1.0 at the
beginning/middle of 2004, but I'm not TE. Exchanging parts of the
texmf-tree could cause more severe failures than the above.

> If anyone insists this to be RC, I will reassign this to TeX/LateX
> but people there seems handful with similar reports and such an big
> example file like this package is tough one to track the bugs.
>
> So, I am making this a "wishlist" for now and I will close this one if
> latest unstable environment build OK.
>
I'll have a look at the bugs to see, what you're really speaking
about.

> (I CC this to debian-doc so other doc maintainer will e aware of.)
>
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 11:07:47PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> > Looks like it. Changing bin/debiandoc2latexpdf's "pdflatex" call to a
> > "pdfelatex" one seems to be a workaround.
>
> If new "pdfelatex" is needed, why this was not offered as an
> alternative of pdflatex so it does not break build script. Is this
> already fix? This looks like one of etex transition issue withing
> TeX/LateX.
>

H.
--
We're all looking for a woman who can sit in a mini-skirt and talk
philosophy, executing both with confidence and style.
http://hilmarpreusse.forum-rheinland.de/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On 15.08.04 Osamu Aoki (osamu@debian.org) wrote:

Hi,

> Sigh :-( I am wondering how TeX/LaTeX folks feel about RC bugs on
> documentation packages due to recent TeX/LaTeX package situation.
> Look at Bug #265247
>
.... has nothing to do with the TeX e-TeX migration. Until now I'm not
really sure, about what happened here, cause after unpack a file was
missing, which is part of tetex-bin. The following was a typo in
tetex-base -- unrelated to the migration.

> #265611
>
.... has nothing to do with the TeX e-TeX migration. It might be the
other migration: /usr/share/texmf/web2c it not more an ln -s into
/var, but rather an own dir. Doesn't break the autobuilders, as they
assume the default answers and not changed config files.

> #264394
>
Bug is normal. The described file doesn't compile on Knuth TeX
either. No gain if you switch back. The bug is here, that the error
behaviour of e-TeX is wrong.

> #263840
>
Wouldn't have happened, if the user would have taken the default
answer. Doesn't break the auto builders.

Thanks,
Hilmar
--
Most people's favorite way to end a game is by winning.
http://hilmarpreusse.forum-rheinland.de/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

From: Hilmar Preusse
Subject: Re: Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 09:26:45 +0200

> On 15.08.04 Osamu Aoki (osamu@debian.org) wrote:
>
> > If anyone insists this to be RC, I will reassign this to TeX/LateX
> > but people there seems handful with similar reports and such an big
> > example file like this package is tough one to track the bugs.
> >
> > So, I am making this a "wishlist" for now and I will close this one if
> > latest unstable environment build OK.
> >
> I'll have a look at the bugs to see, what you're really speaking
> about.

I've had a quick look at the bug but the package is really
big and hard to investigate.

What I can't understand is why scripts would try to generate
*.fmt and/or *.efmt, and I have a feeling that scripts
could be refined to some extent. Anyway please try the patch
attached.

Regards, 2004.8.16(Mon)

--
Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
Atsuhito Kohda
Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima

diff -ur debian-reference-old/Makefile debian-reference-1.07/Makefile
--- debian-reference-old/Makefile 2004-08-16 14:28:15.000000000 +0900
+++ debian-reference-1.07/Makefile 2004-08-16 14:31:15.000000000 +0900
@@ -228,16 +228,35 @@

latex.fmt: texmf/language.dat
TEXINPUTS=$$(pwd)/texmf/:$$(kpsetool -n tex -p tex) \
- fmtutil --byfmt latex --fmtdir .
+ tex -ini latex.ini > /dev/null
+# fmtutil --byfmt latex --fmtdir .

pdflatex.fmt: texmf/language.dat
TEXINPUTS=$$(pwd)/texmf/:$$(kpsetool -n pdftex -p tex) \
- fmtutil --byfmt pdflatex --fmtdir .
+ pdftex -ini pdflatex.ini > /dev/null
+# fmtutil --byfmt pdflatex --fmtdir .

# required by thumbpdf (called from debiandoc2latexpdf)
pdftex.fmt: texmf/language.dat
TEXINPUTS=$$(pwd)/texmf/:$$(kpsetool -n pdftex -p tex) \
- fmtutil --byfmt pdftex --fmtdir .
+ pdftex -ini pdftex.ini > /dev/null
+# fmtutil --byfmt pdftex --fmtdir .
+
+latex.efmt: texmf/language.dat
+ TEXINPUTS=$$(pwd)/texmf/:$$(kpsetool -n tex -p tex) \
+ etex -ini latex.ini > /dev/null
+# fmtutil --byfmt latex --fmtdir .
+
+pdflatex.efmt: texmf/language.dat
+ TEXINPUTS=$$(pwd)/texmf/; \
+ pdfetex -ini pdflatex.ini > /dev/null
+# fmtutil --byfmt pdflatex --fmtdir .
+
+# required by thumbpdf (called from debiandoc2latexpdf)
+pdftex.efmt: texmf/language.dat
+ TEXINPUTS=$$(pwd)/texmf/; \
+ pdfetex -ini pdftex.ini > /dev/null
+# fmtutil --byfmt pdftex --fmtdir .

# DVI

@@ -251,24 +270,24 @@

# PS

-$(MANUAL1).%.ps: $(MANUAL1).%.sgml $(MANUAL1).%.ent $(SGMLSRCS) latex.fmt
+$(MANUAL1).%.ps: $(MANUAL1).%.sgml $(MANUAL1).%.ent $(SGMLSRCS) latex.fmt latex.efmt
ln -sf fix.latex.ent fix.ent
bin/debiandoc2latexps $(BUILD_OPT) -l $$(echo $* | bin/getlocale) $<

-$(MANUAL2).%.ps: $(MANUAL2).%.sgml $(MANUAL2).%.ent $(SGMLSRCS) latex.fmt
+$(MANUAL2).%.ps: $(MANUAL2).%.sgml $(MANUAL2).%.ent $(SGMLSRCS) latex.fmt latex.efmt
ln -sf fix.latex.ent fix.ent
bin/debiandoc2latexps $(BUILD_OPT) -l $$(echo $* | bin/getlocale) $<

# PDF

$(MANUAL1).%.pdf: $(MANUAL1).%.sgml $(MANUAL1).%.ent $(SGMLSRCS) \
- pdflatex.fmt pdftex.fmt %/hyperref-full.cfg
+ pdflatex.fmt pdftex.fmt pdflatex.efmt pdftex.efmt %/hyperref-full.cfg
ln -sf fix.latex.ent fix.ent
ln -sf $*/hyperref-full.cfg hyperref.cfg
bin/debiandoc2latexpdf $(BUILD_OPT) -l $$(echo $* | bin/getlocale) $<

$(MANUAL2).%.pdf: $(MANUAL2).%.sgml $(MANUAL2).%.ent $(SGMLSRCS) \
- pdflatex.fmt pdftex.fmt %/hyperref-quick.cfg
+ pdflatex.fmt pdftex.fmt pdflatex.efmt pdftex.efmt %/hyperref-quick.cfg
ln -sf fix.latex.ent fix.ent
ln -sf $*/hyperref-quick.cfg hyperref.cfg
bin/debiandoc2latexpdf $(BUILD_OPT) -l $$(echo $* | bin/getlocale) $<
@@ -556,7 +575,7 @@
manual.html.stamp: manual.sgml
debiandoc2html manual.sgml
touch manual.html.stamp
-
+
#====[ cleaning up ]================================================== =========
distclean: clean
make "PUBLISHDIR=~/public_html/" publish-clean
@@ -574,7 +593,7 @@
rm -f $(addprefix $(MANUAL1).*.,$(clean_SUFFIXES))
rm -f $(addprefix $(MANUAL2).*.,$(clean_SUFFIXES))
rm -f *~ prior.aux pprior.aux *.log typescript README README.html
- rm -f latex.fmt pdflatex.fmt pdftex.fmt latex.efmt pdflatex.efmt
+ rm -f latex.fmt pdflatex.fmt pdftex.fmt latex.efmt pdflatex.efmt pdftex.efmt
rm -f latex.log pdflatex.log pdftex.log
rm -f *.tex[01]pdf *.tex[01]ps
rm -f $(MANUAL0).tar.gz fix.ent hyperref.cfg

Osamu Aoki wrote:

>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 19:51:31 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> > Transcript written on pdflatex.log.
>> > fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.fmt installed.
>> > (Fatal format file error; I'm stymied)
>> > debiandoc2latexpdf: ERROR: reference.en.pdf could not be generated properly
>> > make[1]: *** [reference.en.pdf] Error 1
>> >
>> > I assume this has to do with the recent changes to tetex-bin, but I'm not
>> > really sure.
>
> Sigh :-( I am wondering how TeX/LaTeX folks feel about RC bugs on
> documentation packages due to recent TeX/LaTeX package situation. Look
> at Bug #265247 (or #265247), #265611, #264394, #263840, ... it ain't
> pretty sight.
>
> I do not feel like adding build script hack now to package just to get
> away for FTBFS serious bug unless TeX/LaTeX is stabilized.

In my opinion, the way debian-reference (and others?) worked around
tetex's poor language handling is plainly wrong.

As far as I understand it, you want to generate pdf's in various
languages and need hyphenation enabled for each of them. Because of
teTeX's previously poor handling of languages, you enabled them in a
local format file you created during package build, right?

- First of all, this is no longer needed. In a noninteractive or
hit-ENTER-always install, you get a language.dat with patterns enabled
for all available languages.

- Instead of making a workaround in the package (namely, building a
local format file), you should have complained with the teTeX
maintainers earlier. Then we would probably have come up with the
"default-all" solution earlier.

> I know TeX/LaTeX has been quite actively updated. IMHO, it should be
> very stable when FREEZE starts. But reality is not. If you think about
> TeX/LateX, it is like GCC for C program. We should not make major change
> with incompatibility at this late moment. But it happened.

Yes, it happened. I didn't feel too well with some of the last
changes. But as for the eTeX transition, I must say, I didn't envisage
any problems. I simply didn't assume that package maintainers made such
ugly workarounds instead of requesting us to do the changes they needed.

> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 11:07:47PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
>> Looks like it. Changing bin/debiandoc2latexpdf's "pdflatex" call to a
>> "pdfelatex" one seems to be a workaround.
>
> If new "pdfelatex" is needed, why this was not offered as an alternative
> of pdflatex so it does not break build script. Is this already fix?

I do not completely understand how this workaround helps. But pdfelatex
is and was available - what alternatives should we have offered?

And, more importantly, do the problems still occur with
tetex-bin_2.0.2-18?

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:03:23PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> And, more importantly, do the problems still occur with
> tetex-bin_2.0.2-18?

I was using 2.0.2-18 when filing this bug. I knew there were
problems with the -17 version.

This is still failing in current sid.


Kurt

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:21:05PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>
> I've had a quick look at the bug but the package is really
> big and hard to investigate.
>
> What I can't understand is why scripts would try to generate
> *.fmt and/or *.efmt, and I have a feeling that scripts
> could be refined to some extent. Anyway please try the patch
> attached.

With the patch it seems to build now.

However, I see messages like this:
sh: gs: command not found
!!! Error: Closing Ghostscript (exit status: 127)!
debiandoc2latexpdf: ERROR: thumbnail images could not be generated properly
debiandoc2latexpdf: rerun with the -v option to found out why

I think something is missing a (build) depend on gs. After
installing it that seems to be gone too.


Kurt



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 08:21:05PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
> I've had a quick look at the bug but the package is really
> big and hard to investigate.

Yes. Your patch at least build my package (it may yield in funny
bullets or something.) I used it as the last resourt to get
documentation updates in. Thanks.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-tetex-maint-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

reassign 265743 debian-reference
thanks

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:03:23PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
...
> In my opinion, the way debian-reference (and others?) worked around
> tetex's poor language handling is plainly wrong.

Hmmm... Interesting. Come to think of it, our old workaround may need
to be removed. I applied Koda-san's patch and it worked like a charm.
I will upload updated package with this patch. So far it is building
OK.

> As far as I understand it, you want to generate pdf's in various
> languages and need hyphenation enabled for each of them. Because of
> teTeX's previously poor handling of languages, you enabled them in a
> local format file you created during package build, right?
>
> - First of all, this is no longer needed. In a noninteractive or
> hit-ENTER-always install, you get a language.dat with patterns enabled
> for all available languages.

You are right. I will fix it post-sarge.

> - Instead of making a workaround in the package (namely, building a
> local format file), you should have complained with the teTeX
> maintainers earlier. Then we would probably have come up with the
> "default-all" solution earlier.

I will note this. (I was not smart enough to do this though...)

> And, more importantly, do the problems still occur with
> tetex-bin_2.0.2-18?

As reported, error occured in tetex-bin_2.0.2-18. I was OK with -17.

Regards,

Osamu