Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes? - Debian

This is a discussion on Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes? - Debian ; severity wishlist 265743 thanks Thanks Ray for the work around. As Jens Seidel reported, tetex-bin version 2.0.2-15 did not reproduce it. This may be solved issue but it may be interesting for people updating TeX/LaTeX packages especially work around reported. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

  1. Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

    severity wishlist 265743
    thanks

    Thanks Ray for the work around.

    As Jens Seidel reported, tetex-bin version 2.0.2-15 did not reproduce
    it. This may be solved issue but it may be interesting for people
    updating TeX/LaTeX packages especially work around reported.

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

    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.

    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 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.

    Osamu


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFBH7Tj6A/EwagGHzIRAthCAJkB3fS2nBgjPkXH2biuc4aNQWs0agCePMDx
    m4+AdJZCWi8npW4zTpIIXa4=
    =cbkt
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  2. Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

    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

  3. Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

    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

  4. Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

    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


  5. Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

    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

  6. Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

    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

  7. Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

    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

  8. Re: Bug#265743: debian-reference: fixed

    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

  9. Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?

    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

+ Reply to Thread