headers
Atsuhito Kohda | 1 Dec 2002 02:36
Picon

Bug#171196: tetex-bin: 1.0.7+20021025-3 missing cfg files, xdvi unhappy

From: Thomas Pichler <taupi <at> aon.at>
Subject: Bug#171196: tetex-bin: 1.0.7+20021025-3 missing cfg files, xdvi unhappy
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 23:14:41 +0100

> Here is a remedy for the xdvi.cfg problem which still exists
> in tetex-bin 1.0.7+20021025-4, tetex-base 1.0.2+20021025-2

> As of version 1.0.2+20021025-2, tetex-base contains ps2pk.map.

I found why xdvi.cfg was missing.

In the old tetex-packages (1.0.{2.7}+20011202-*) it was in 
tetex-bin but it now should be in tetex-base due to the changes 
of the upstream.  Almost the same for ps2pk.map but this was
duplicated in the old tetex-packages as the following;

kohda <at> fits:~$ dpkg -l tetex-b*
ii  tetex-base     1.0.2+20011202 basic teTeX library files
ii  tetex-bin      1.0.7+20011202 teTeX binary files
kohda <at> fits:~$ dpkg -S ps2pk.map
tetex-bin: /usr/share/texmf/xdvi/ps2pk.map
tetex-base: /etc/texmf/dvips/ps2pk.map

I suspect the packaging of old tetex-packages were in a bit
wrong way.

I will fix this in the next upload.

Best regards,		    2002/12/1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Atsuhito Kohda | 1 Dec 2002 03:03
Picon

Bug#169902: revtex4 and tetex-extra conflict

From: Alexei Kaminski <kaminski <at> debian.org>
Subject: Bug#169902: revtex4 and tetex-extra conflict
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2002 13:37:06 -0500

> Hi,

Hi,

> I am Alexei Kaminski, the maintainer of revtex4 package. 
> 
> I think that having REVTeX v. 4 included in both packages `revtex4' and 
> `tetex-extra' is a bad thing. I do not think that just adding corresponding 
> "Conflicts:" is the proper solution. In my opinion, either `tetex-extra' 
> should drop REVTeX v. 4 or `revtex4' should be removed entirely.
> 
> I leave the decision to the `tetex-extra' maintainers. If they decide that 
> 'revtex4' package should be removed, I will do it.

Thanks for your kind suggestion.  I think that it might
be better to remove revtex4 rather than to drop revtex4 
from tetex-extra.

But because I don't know about revtex4 so I would like 
to know if revtex4 of tetex-extra is a complete set of 
revtex4 or not, before requesting removal of revtex4.

If possible, please investigate and let me know if tetex-extra
is a good enough to replace revtex4 package or not.

Best regards,		    2002/12/1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Atsuhito Kohda | 1 Dec 2002 02:49
Picon

Bug#171214: tetex-base: please include txr3.map and pxr3.map for dvipdfm

From: Chung-chieh Shan <ken <at> digitas.harvard.edu>
Subject: Bug#171214: tetex-base: please include txr3.map and pxr3.map for dvipdfm
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 19:47:38 -0500

> Hello,

Hello,

> Could you please include txr3.map and pxr3.map from CTAN in the txfonts
> (resp. pxfonts) distribution?  It would make the output of dvipdfm much
> more beautiful for these fonts.

With my quick investigation, txr3.map, pxr3.map are specific 
to dvipdfm and it need to add the entry to dvipdfm's config file 
so I suspect that it might be dvipdfm which is responsible for
txr3.map, pxr3.map.

As I do not know so much about txfonts, pxfonts so I would
not reassign this bug to dvipdfm yet.

If you have any idea, please let me know.

Best regards,			 2002/12/1

--

-- 
 Debian Developer & Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian
 Atsuhito Kohda <kohda <at> debian.org>
 Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Atsuhito Kohda | 1 Dec 2002 03:40
Picon

Re: setting of secure mode in config.ps

Hi all,

I sent the followwing email to tetex-pretest but I 
got no reply yet.  (Sorry if I overlooked it)

But we got several bugs on this issue so I would like
to know what is the correct fix.

> I noticed that config.ps in teTeX-texmf-beta-20021025.tar.gz
> (a bit old now, sorry) contains the lines;
> 
>    % Execution of external programs is disabled by default. Set
>    % to z1 if you want backticks in \special commands enabled.
>    z0
> 
> but, if I understand the comments correctly, I doubt that 
> this is correct.
> 
> As far as I tested, under "z0", dvips run in unsecure mode
> and under "z1" dvips run in secure mode. 
> 
> I guess the comments seemed wrong and the default should be "z1"
> 
> If this was already known or fixed, I'm verry sorry.

I checked the latest teTeX-texmf-beta-20021116 but it is
the same.  If there is any my misunderstanding ?

Best regards,		   2002/12/1
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Debian Bug Tracking System | 1 Dec 2002 04:33
Picon

Bug#50247: marked as done (dvips -Ppdf breaks ligatures)

Your message dated Sun, 01 Dec 2002 12:19:02 +0900 (JST)
with message-id <20021201.121902.71101187.kohda <at> pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
and subject line fixed in tetex-bin 1.0.7+20011202-8
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)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Nov 1999 14:51:49 +0000
Received: (qmail 22295 invoked from network); 15 Nov 1999 14:51:48 -0000
Received: from hilbert.weh.rwth-aachen.de (137.226.141.15)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 15 Nov 1999 14:51:48 -0000
Received: (from jens <at> localhost)
	by hilbert.weh.rwth-aachen.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian/GNU) id PAA01440;
	Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:51:45 +0100
Message-Id: <199911151451.PAA01440 <at> hilbert.weh.rwth-aachen.de>
From: Jens Ritter <grimaldi <at> debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit <at> bugs.debian.org>
Subject: dvips -Ppdf breaks ligatures
X-Reportbug-Version: 0.31
X-Mailer: reportbug 0.31
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Debian Bug Tracking System | 1 Dec 2002 04:48
Picon

Bug#72619: marked as done (tetex-bin: amstex is broken?)

Your message dated Sun, 01 Dec 2002 12:39:00 +0900 (JST)
with message-id <20021201.123900.78722859.kohda <at> pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
and subject line amstex.fmt is now generated at installation
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)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 27 Sep 2000 20:57:37 +0000
From jrv <at> mitre.org Wed Sep 27 15:57:37 2000
Return-path: <jrv <at> mitre.org>
Received: from mb-20-100.mitre.org (smtpproxy1.mitre.org) [::ffff:129.83.20.100] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 13eOGm-0000dm-00; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 15:57:36 -0500
Received: from vanzandt-pc.mitre.org (root <at> vanzandt-pc.mitre.org [129.83.216.153])
	by smtpproxy1.mitre.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05490
	for <submit <at> bugs.debian.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:57:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by mitre.org
	via sendmail from stdin
	id <m13eOGf-0004RHC <at> vanzandt-pc.mitre.org> (Debian Smail3.2.0.102)
	for submit <at> bugs.debian.org; Wed, 27 Sep 2000 16:57:29 -0400 (EDT)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Debian Bug Tracking System | 1 Dec 2002 05:03
Picon

Bug#67225: marked as done (tetex-bin: /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf: wrong cslatex path)

Your message dated Sun, 01 Dec 2002 12:54:14 +0900 (JST)
with message-id <20021201.125414.112611397.kohda <at> pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp>
and subject line fixed in the latest tetex-base at least
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)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 14 Jul 2000 10:09:03 +0000
From kise <at> dmf.co.jp Fri Jul 14 05:09:03 2000
Return-path: <kise <at> dmf.co.jp>
Received: from mail.dmc.okinawa-ric.or.jp [210.142.128.99] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 2 (Debian))
	id 13D2P0-00053x-00; Fri, 14 Jul 2000 05:09:02 -0500
Received: from manta.dmf.co.jp by mail.dmc.okinawa-ric.or.jp (8.8.8/3.7W) id TAA21028; Fri, 14 Jul
2000 19:08:59 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 19:08:59 +0900
Message-ID: <883dldc9c4.wl <at> manta.dmf.co.jp>
From: Hiroshi KISE <fuyuneko <at> ryukyu.ne.jp>
To: submit <at> bugs.debian.org
Subject: tetex-bin: /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf: wrong cslatex path
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Peter Schulte-Stracke | 1 Dec 2002 11:54
Picon
Favicon

Bug#171344: tetex-bin: xdvi shows fake small caps at 100% using T1-fonts

Package: tetex-bin
Version: 1.0.7+20011202-8
Severity: normal

T1 fake small caps are now rendered as full-size caps.  Their spacing
is correctly reduced, only the size reduction doesn't take place
anymore, I suppose. Version: xdvik, version 22.40f.

Regards,
	Peter

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Kernel Version: Linux pet 2.2.19n #1 Wed Jul 31 11:56:35 CEST 2002 i586 unknown

Versions of the packages tetex-bin depends on:
ii  debianutils    1.15           Miscellaneous utilities specific to Debian.
ii  dpkg           1.9.21         Package maintenance system for Debian
ii  ed             0.2-19         The classic unix line editor
ii  libc6          2.2.5-14.3     GNU C Library: Shared libraries and Timezone
ii  libkpathsea3   1.0.7+20011202 shared libkpathsea for teTeX
ii  libpng3        1.2.1-1.1      PNG library - runtime
ii  libstdc++2.10- 2.95.4-0.01090 The GNU stdc++ library
ii  libtiff3g      3.5.5-6        Tag Image File Format library
ii  libxaw7        4.1.0-5        X Athena widget set library
ii  tetex-base     1.0.2+20011202 basic teTeX library files
ii  xlibs          4.1.0-5        X Window System client libraries
ii  zlib1g         1.1.4-1        compression library - runtime
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Gunther Laure | 1 Dec 2002 18:37
Picon
Picon

Bug#171348: listing.sty returns Package keyval errors

Package: tetex-extra
Version: 1.0.2+20021025-2

When using listing.sty and \lstset, latex returns package keyval errors.
The keywords stringspaces, labelstyle, labelstep, labelsep and indent
seem not to supported.

The version in testing works with no problems.

Example error generating latex source:

\documentclass[oneside,a4paper,english]{article}

\usepackage{listings}

\lstloadlanguages{C++,Make}

\lstset{language=C++,
basewidth={0.57em,0.45em},
basicstyle=\scriptsize,
keywordstyle=\bfseries,
commentstyle=\color{middlegray},
stringspaces=false,   %
flexiblecolumns=false,
tabsize=2,
labelstyle=\tiny,     %
labelstep=1,          %
labelsep=4pt,         %
indent=15pt           %
}
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Alexei Kaminski | 1 Dec 2002 20:43
Picon
Favicon

Bug#169902: revtex4 and tetex-extra conflict


Hi,

On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Atsuhito Kohda wrote:
>
> Thanks for your kind suggestion.  I think that it might
> be better to remove revtex4 rather than to drop revtex4
> from tetex-extra.
>
Ok.

> But because I don't know about revtex4 so I would like
> to know if revtex4 of tetex-extra is a complete set of
> revtex4 or not, before requesting removal of revtex4.
>
> If possible, please investigate and let me know if tetex-extra
> is good enough to replace revtex4 package or not.

I have checked your packages.
tetex-extra 1.0.2+20021025-2 does provide all revtex4 stylefiles
and 
tetex-doc 1.0.2+20021025-2 does provide all the documentation.
Thus there is no need in revtex4 anymore. I think the proper way to handle 
the conflict is to make an empty dummy package revtex4_4.0-3, which depends 
on tetex-extra (>= 1.0.2+20021025-2), and have tetex-extra conflict not with 
any revtex4, but only with (<= 4.0-2). This will make woody->sarge upgrade 
smooth. I think it has to be done, because the description of tetex-extra 
does not (and probably should not) mention revtex4 and users of revtex4 may 
be quite surprised when tetex-extra, which never provided revtex before, 
forces them to remove revtex4 without any explanation.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 501 comments |

Gmane