Hongzheng Wang | 1 Jul 21:39 2007
Picon

Bug#431338: texlive-base-bin: config.ps needs to be updated to support powerdot

Package: texlive-base-bin
Version: 2007-12
Severity: normal

Hi,

I'm not sure if this problem has been addressed before since I'm just
beginning to use powerdot in texlive-latex-recommended package.  It has
been reported in powerdot's mailing list that some powerdot documents
fail to get proper page sizes in pdf format through dvips:
http://www.freelists.org/archives/powerdot/05-2007/msg00019.html
And a solution, replacing config.ps with a newer one, is also posted in
the bug report of texlive2007:
http://tug.org/texlive/bugs.html

I wonder if the current config.ps shipped by texlive-base-bin could be
replaced with the newer one?  Or is there any potential problems which
prohibit such a simple displacement?

Thank you.

-- Package-specific info:
If you report an error when running one of the TeX-related binaries 
(latex, pdftex, metafont,...), or if the bug is related to bad or wrong
output, please include a MINIMAL example input file that produces the
error in your report. Don't forget to also include minimal examples of
other files that are needed, e.g. bibtex databases. Often it also helps
to include the logfile. Please, never send included pictures!

If your example file isn't short or produces more than one page of
(Continue reading)

Frank Küster | 1 Jul 22:55 2007
Picon

Re: [Bug 122863] Re: package texlive-base-bin 2007-11 failed to install/upgrade: post-installation script spawns thousands of processes

Frank Küster <frank <at> debian.org> wrote:

> Norbert Preining <preining <at> logic.at> wrote:
>
>> What wonders me is that this did happen at all.
>>
>> As far as I see, since the tex-common 1.8 was introduced definitely
>> *before* the tried upgrade, it should have been selected for the
>> upgrade and the whole stuff shouldn't have happened.
>>
>> Frank, do you have any explanation for this? And whether this could
>> happen to etch->lenny upgrade, too?
>
> I don't really have an explanation.  

One morething which is strange is that the original reporter said that
there were *two* fork bombs after each other, and that the first was
"related" to mktexlsr, but still there were *etex* processes running.

This I cannot explain anyhow, I assume that the bug reporter mixed
something up, please ask him to clarify that (I'm in a hurry, leaving
for holiday, and have no time to look up the launchpad bug and
reporter's e-mail address, sorry).

> I'm not sure what texlive and tex-common versions feisty had, but
> if I assume it resembles sarge (tex-common 1.0*), *then* I do not have
> an explanation. 

We should really try to get exact version numbers (aptitude log?)

(Continue reading)

Debian testing watch | 2 Jul 00:39 2007
Picon

tex-common 1.9 MIGRATED to testing

FYI: The status of the tex-common source package
in Debian's testing distribution has changed.

  Previous version: 1.8
  Current version:  1.9

--

-- 
This email is automatically generated; henning <at> makholm.net is responsible.
See http://people.debian.org/~henning/trille/ for more information.

Steve Langasek | 2 Jul 02:48 2007
Picon

Re: Release Goal Proposal: texlive-transition

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 07:32:58PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <vorlon <at> debian.org> wrote:

> > While I think this is a useful case for mass-bugfiling, and that any NMUers
> > of the affected packages should consider fixing these issues /when an NMU is
> > already needed/, it's my impression that the alternative dependency is of
> > only superficial importance.  I don't see any benefit to the quality of
> > lenny for the release team to sanction this as an official "release goal"
> > with sanctioned 0-day NMUs.

> I disagree.

> - tetex-bin and tetex-extra do still exist, as metapackages, and we
>   would like to have the freedom to change their dependencies as we
>   learn about users' needs, without bothering whether some package is
>   broken by this.

Which precisely implies that the functionality provided by
tetex-bin/tetex-extra from one release to the next is not reliable; that
sounds like a net decrease in quality to me...

> - It would be nice if tetex-doc, and therefore the complete tetex-base
>   source package, could be removed.

Sure, lots of things would be nice to do that shouldn't necessarily be done
by means of 0-day NMUs.

--

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
(Continue reading)

Norbert Preining | 2 Jul 07:38 2007
Picon

Bug#431338: texlive-base-bin: config.ps needs to be updated to support powerdot

Hi all,

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007, Hongzheng Wang wrote:
> And a solution, replacing config.ps with a newer one, is also posted in
> the bug report of texlive2007:
> http://tug.org/texlive/bugs.html
> 
> I wonder if the current config.ps shipped by texlive-base-bin could be
> replaced with the newer one?  Or is there any potential problems which
> prohibit such a simple displacement?

Anyone can comment on this? I don't see any problem.

BTW, Hongzheng, could you just try it? Replace
	/etc/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps
with the one downloaded and please test several documents. If everything
works I guess I do some more tests and replace the file.

Best wishes

Norbert

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Norbert Preining <preining <at> logic.at>        Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <preining <at> debian.org>                         Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094      fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable
end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small
unregarded yellow sun.
(Continue reading)

Hongzheng Wang | 2 Jul 08:36 2007
Picon

Bug#431338: texlive-base-bin: config.ps needs to be updated to support powerdot

Hi Norbert,

I have tried to use the newer one.  Then the powerdot examples, i.e.,
/usr/share/doc/texlive-latex-recommended/latex/powerdot/powerdot-example*
can be processed correctly.  Otherwise, by tex -> dvi -> ps -> pdf,
the final pdf file will have a wrong paper size.  But, frankly
speaking, I'm not sure if the newer config.ps will cause other
problems.  So, comments are welcome :-)

Thanks.

On 7/2/07, Norbert Preining <preining <at> logic.at> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007, Hongzheng Wang wrote:
> > And a solution, replacing config.ps with a newer one, is also posted in
> > the bug report of texlive2007:
> > http://tug.org/texlive/bugs.html
> >
> > I wonder if the current config.ps shipped by texlive-base-bin could be
> > replaced with the newer one?  Or is there any potential problems which
> > prohibit such a simple displacement?
>
> Anyone can comment on this? I don't see any problem.
>
> BTW, Hongzheng, could you just try it? Replace
>         /etc/texmf/dvips/config/config.ps
> with the one downloaded and please test several documents. If everything
> works I guess I do some more tests and replace the file.
>
(Continue reading)

Frank Küster | 2 Jul 08:50 2007
Picon

Re: Release Goal Proposal: texlive-transition

Steve Langasek <vorlon <at> debian.org> wrote:

>> - tetex-bin and tetex-extra do still exist, as metapackages, and we
>>   would like to have the freedom to change their dependencies as we
>>   learn about users' needs, without bothering whether some package is
>>   broken by this.
>
> Which precisely implies that the functionality provided by
> tetex-bin/tetex-extra from one release to the next is not reliable; 

Exactly, but that problem exists, anyway.  The organisation of TeX Live
(upstream) is different to our old teTeX splitting, and it would be
hardly possible to create a package with exactly tetex-extra's, or even
-bin's functionality.  Moreover, the splitting of tetex is quite buggy,
anyway.  Even when we had not switched to texlive, we would have tried
to make this better and thus would have changed the functionality
provided by tetex-bin.

> that
> sounds like a net decrease in quality to me...

The change is not avoidable.  I think it's better to make it clear
*now*. 

Regards, Frank
--

-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding  <at>  Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

(Continue reading)

Lionel Elie Mamane | 2 Jul 12:49 2007
Picon

Patches for dvidvi

Hi,

I am the maintainer of the Debian package of dvidvi. As you probably
know, Debian recently switched to TeXLive from teTeX, and TeXLive
contains its own dvidvi. I am writing to you because the dvidvi in
Debian contains patches (by, among others, Benjamin Bayart) for
various improvements. I thought you'd like to integrate them in
TeXLive. Here a few extracts from the changelog of the Debian package
of dvidvi:

 * Integrate patch by Benjamin Bayart to take into account PostScript
   inclusion \special's in the first page even if the first page is
   not kept in the final result. Fixes handling of dvi files making
   use of PStricks or colour or other advanced PostScript features.

 * dvidvi.c (stringdvibuf): Fix "unexpected eof" error on some big
   files; thanks to Benjamin BAYART for the patch.  Closes: #231275.

 * Make the C code warning-free.

The Debian package also contains a Unix version of a5booklet, which
TeXLive seems to be missing. The code changes in Debian are naturally
untested on non-Unix (or non-modern Unix) platforms.

On the other hand, the version in TeXLive contains other changes
compared to the version the one in Debian is based on. In particular:

 - it has version number 1.1 instead of 1.0

 - accepts command line switches -j and -p.
(Continue reading)

Norbert Preining | 2 Jul 13:42 2007
Picon

Re: Patches for dvidvi

Hi Lionel,

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> I am the maintainer of the Debian package of dvidvi. As you probably
> know, Debian recently switched to TeXLive from teTeX, and TeXLive

Thanks for contacting us. To be honest I had it on my TODO list since a
long time to get into contact with you because of this duplication. I
wanted to leave out dvidvi from the DEBIAN TeX Live packages and instead
depend on your packages, but then I saw what you mentioned, that TL has
version 1.1, accepts other command line switches etc.

(putting TeX Live Developer hat on)
I don't know about the maintainer status of dvidvi, is it actively
maintained, and if yes, where? If yes best would be to merge the patches
from Debian to upstream dvidvi from where they will come back to TeX
Live and Debian (and as DD I could leave this part out of Debian TL).

All the patches you mentioned:
>  * Integrate patch by Benjamin Bayart to take into account PostScript
>    inclusion \special's in the first page even if the first page is
>    not kept in the final result. Fixes handling of dvi files making
>    use of PStricks or colour or other advanced PostScript features.
> 
>  * dvidvi.c (stringdvibuf): Fix "unexpected eof" error on some big
>    files; thanks to Benjamin BAYART for the patch.  Closes: #231275.
> 
>  * Make the C code warning-free.
> 
> The Debian package also contains a Unix version of a5booklet, which
(Continue reading)

Lionel Elie Mamane | 2 Jul 14:18 2007
Picon

Re: Patches for dvidvi

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 01:42:06PM +0200, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

>> I am the maintainer of the Debian package of dvidvi. As you
>> probably know, Debian recently switched to TeXLive from teTeX, and
>> TeXLive

> Thanks for contacting us. To be honest I had it on my TODO list
> since a long time to get into contact with you because of this
> duplication. I wanted to leave out dvidvi from the DEBIAN TeX Live
> packages and instead depend on your packages, but then I saw what
> you mentioned, that TL has version 1.1, accepts other command line
> switches etc.

Well, after the discussion in Debian bug #411537, the temporary
situation (meant for etch, until I contacted the TeX Live list) was
that: texlive-* does not contain dvidvi, but texlive-extra-utils
recommends (my package) dvidvi.

I realise now that the 2007 packages (in unstable) don't recommend
dvidvi anymore, but don't ship dvidvi either. I don't see anything
that mentions something about that in the changelog.

> (putting TeX Live Developer hat on)

> I don't know about the maintainer status of dvidvi, is it actively
> maintained, and if yes, where?

I don't think it is. dvidvi has been in Debian for nearly a decade
(since October 1997) and no upstream change is known since
(Continue reading)


Gmane