C.M. Connelly | 1 May 01:28 2002

Re: tetex-base: /usr/share/doc/texmf/mkhtml{,.nawk}

"SP" == Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <shalehperry <at> attbi.com> writes:

    SP> <quote> Files in /usr/share/doc should not be referenced
    SP> by any program, and the system administrator should be
    SP> able to delete them without causing any programs to
    SP> break. Any files that are referenced by programs but are
    SP> also useful as standalone documentation should be
    SP> installed under /usr/share/package/ with symbolic links
    SP> from /usr/share/doc/package/.  </quote>

Yes, that's the closest I could find, too.  

    SP> This coupled with the FHS definitions of /usr/share and
    SP> /usr/share/doc.

These, too.

    SP> ANYTHING in /usr/share should be NFS mountable and thus
    SP> viewable by any machine on the network.  It should not be
    SP> used as a storage for programs.

Having a script there really doesn't have any effect on whether or
not the directory can be NFS mountable, especially as the script
only formats a list of files into HTML, and the output of that
script goes into a file in /var/lib/texmf.

But I do think we should move the script, rename it, and probably
rewrite the thing as well (as it produces pretty rough HTML right
now).

(Continue reading)

Ian Zimmerman | 1 May 01:32 2002
Picon

Bug#61627: this is serious


cm> To make this change, we would need to modify
cm> tetex-bin:texmf.d/05TeXMF to use /var/cache instead of /var/spool
cm> (easy).  Slightly harder is deciding what to do about existing PK
cm> fonts.  Off the top of my head, we could

cm> 1. Delete them, and allow them to be regenerated on-the-fly
cm> 2. Move the fonts from their old location to the new location
cm> 3. Allow the systems administrator to decide whether to move the
cm> fonts or not

I was silently assuming 1), but I don't have a preference, really.
Any of the 3 will do for me.

cm> Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in
cm> his spare time; only by what he does as his work.  W.R. Lethaby

Is this tongue-in-cheek?  I'd say exactly the opposite is the true, in
our times.

-- 
Ian Zimmerman, Oakland, California, U.S.A.
GPG: 433BA087  9C0F 194F 203A 63F7 B1B8  6E5A 8CA3 27DB 433B A087
The world has taken on a thickness of vulgarity that raises
a spiritual man's contempt to the violence of a passion.  Baudelaire

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-tetex-maint-request <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

(Continue reading)

C.M. Connelly | 1 May 01:20 2002

Bug#61627: this is serious

"IZ" == Ian Zimmerman <itz <at> speakeasy.org>

    IZ> I think the priority of this bug should be upgraded.  The
    IZ> FHS has the weight of policy, and its relevant section
    IZ> even metions TeX's pk fonts explicitly:

    FHS> 5.2.1 /var/cache/fonts : Locally-generated fonts
    FHS>           
    FHS> The directory /var/cache/fonts should be used to store
    FHS> any dynamically-created fonts. In particular, all of the
    FHS> fonts which are automatically generated by mktexpk should
    FHS> be located in appropriately-named subdirectories of
    FHS> /var/cache/fonts.

    IZ> This should be easy to change.

To make this change, we would need to modify
tetex-bin:texmf.d/05TeXMF to use /var/cache instead of /var/spool
(easy).  

Slightly harder is deciding what to do about existing PK fonts.

Off the top of my head, we could

   1. Delete them, and allow them to be regenerated on-the-fly

   2. Move the fonts from their old location to the new location

   3. Allow the systems administrator to decide whether to move
      the fonts or not
(Continue reading)

C.M. Connelly | 1 May 02:25 2002

Bug#61627: this is serious

"CMC" == C.M. Connelly <c <at> eskimo.com>
"IZ"  == Ian Zimmerman <itz <at> speakeasy.org>

    CMC> Slightly harder is deciding what to do about existing PK
    CMC> fonts.  Off the top of my head, we could

    CMC> 1. Delete them, and allow them to be regenerated
    CMC>    on-the-fly 

    CMC> 2. Move the fonts from their old location to the new
    CMC>    location

    CMC> 3. Allow the systems administrator to decide whether to
    CMC>    move the fonts or not 

    IZ> I was silently assuming 1), but I don't have a preference,
    IZ> really.  Any of the 3 will do for me.

That's pretty easy, too.

    CMC> Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he
    CMC> does in his spare time; only by what he does as his work.
    CMC> W.R. Lethaby

    IZ> Is this tongue-in-cheek?  I'd say exactly the opposite is
    IZ> the true, in our times.

It wasn't meant to be.  It's part of a longer quote, which was
itself quoted in Justin Howes's _Johnston's Underground Type_.
The whole quote (from Howes) is
(Continue reading)

Julian Gilbey | 1 May 12:28 2002
Picon

Re: tetex-base: /usr/share/doc/texmf/mkhtml{,.nawk}

On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 11:04:25AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> 
> On 30-Apr-2002 Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 05:58:27PM -0700, C.M. Connelly wrote:
> >>     JG> I'm not totally sure why we would have to move them: they
> >>     JG> are private scripts which affect only files in
> >>     JG> /usr/share/doc/texmf and its subdirectories.  As long as
> >>     JG> the programs which call these scripts are robust if
> >>     JG> /usr/share/doc/texmf (or even /usr/share/doc) does not
> >>     JG> exist, where is the problem?
> >> 
> >> Sean Perry seems to believe there's a Policy violation here:
> >> [...]
> >> I can't find a specific statement in the Policy Manual that says
> >> you cannot have executables in /usr/share/doc, although it does
> >> seem like a sensible thing.
> > 
> > Neither can I.  And in this particular case, I don't see where the
> > problem is, as long as nothing fails if /usr/share/doc doesn't exist.
> > 
> 
> <quote>
> Files in /usr/share/doc should not be referenced by any program, and the system
> administrator should be able to delete them without causing any programs to
> break. Any files that are referenced by programs but are also useful as
> standalone documentation should be installed under /usr/share/package/ with
> symbolic links from /usr/share/doc/package/.
> </quote>
> 
> This coupled with the FHS definitions of /usr/share and /usr/share/doc.
(Continue reading)

Michael P. Soulier | 1 May 16:14 2002
Picon

Bug#145403: overwrite of arabtex file

Package: tetex-base
Version: 1.0.2+20011202

    This error occurred on an upgrade...

Unpacking replacement tetex-base ...
dpkg: error processing
/var/cache/apt/archives/tetex-base_1.0.2+20011202-3_all.deb (--unpack):
 trying to overwrite `/usr/share/texmf/dvips/config', which is also in package
arabtex

    Mike

--

-- 
Michael P. Soulier <msoulier <at> storm.ca>, GnuPG pub key: 5BC8BE08
"...the word HACK is used as a verb to indicate a massive amount
of nerd-like effort."  -Harley Hahn, A Student's Guide to Unix
Atsuhito Kohda | 1 May 17:05 2002
Picon

Re: Bug#145403: overwrite of arabtex file

reassign 145403 arabtex

thanks

From: "Michael P. Soulier" <msoulier <at> storm.ca>
Subject: Bug#145403: overwrite of arabtex file
Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 10:14:55 -0400

> Package: tetex-base
> Version: 1.0.2+20011202
> 
>     This error occurred on an upgrade...
> 
> Unpacking replacement tetex-base ...
> dpkg: error processing
> /var/cache/apt/archives/tetex-base_1.0.2+20011202-3_all.deb (--unpack):
>  trying to overwrite `/usr/share/texmf/dvips/config', which is also in package
> arabtex

/usr/share/texmf/dvips/config is not a real directory
but a symlink of /etc/texmf/dvips so the bug is of
arabtex.

arabtex should use /etc/texmf/dvips instead of
/usr/share/texmf/dvips/config

Best regards,		2002.5.1

--

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
(Continue reading)

Debian Bug Tracking System | 1 May 17:03 2002
Picon

Processed: Re: Bug#145403: overwrite of arabtex file

Processing commands for control <at> bugs.debian.org:

> reassign 145403 arabtex
Bug#145403: overwrite of arabtex file
Bug reassigned from package `tetex-base' to `arabtex'.

> thanks
Stopping processing here.

Please contact me if you need assistance.

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-tetex-maint-request <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org

C.M. Connelly | 1 May 23:38 2002
Picon

Additional Draft Release Notes for teTeX


Rob,

Assuming that tetex-base, tetex-doc, and tetex-extra, versions
1.0.2+20011202-3 or later are part of woody, the following
information about Debian's teTeX packages should be included (in
some form) somewhere in woody's release notes.

   Regression in teTeX Packages

   Licensing issues have forced us to remove a number of LaTeX
   packages and fonts from Debian's teTeX packages.  We are working
   with the upstream teTeX author (Thomas Esser) and with the authors
   of these packages to resolve these issues so that these files can
   be included in future Debian teTeX packages.

   The packages (and related documentation and support files) that
   have been removed are:

      algorithm.sty        euler.sty	  
      algorithmic.sty      footbib.sty 
      beton.sty	           fvrb-ex.sty 
      booktabs.sty         picinpar.sty
      caption.sty

   In addition, the Sueterlin and Old German font packages have been
   removed.

   All of these font and LaTeX packages are available from the
   Comprehensive TeX Archive Network (CTAN), and can be installed in
(Continue reading)

C. Scott Ananian | 2 May 03:33 2002
Picon

Bug#145478: tetex-doc: multidoc.doc has extra /end{description}

Package: tetex-doc
Version: 1.0.2+20011202-3
Severity: minor

The file /usr/share/doc/texmf/generic/pstricks/multido.doc.gz
installed by the package 'tetex-doc' has an extra \end{description}
line at the very end of the file (in the changelog).  Because of this,
it will not build as documentation.  (Uncompress and run 'latex multidoc.doc'
to reproduce.)  The fix is very simple: remove the offending \end{description}
line.  A built copy of this document should then be included in the tetex-doc
package.

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux skiffserv 2.4.17 #1 Fri Feb 8 14:08:32 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages tetex-doc depends on:
ii  dpkg                    1.9.20           Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  tetex-base              1.0.2+20011202-3 basic teTeX library files

--

-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-tetex-maint-request <at> lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster <at> lists.debian.org


Gmane