Robert Burgess | 1 Feb 05:08 2008
Picon

Re: CrossTeX


> You've read and followed the TeX Policy which is in the
> tex-common package?
>   
I hadn't, but just took a look at it; thank you for pointing it out so 
that I can be sure I follow it.  I guess what confuses me the most is 
that CrossTeX is written in Python, and all of the information I can 
find assumes that everything about TeX is either in TeX macros itself or 
possibly C---what do I need to do about my Python library and script 
placement?

Robert

Picon

Re: CrossTeX

Op 01-02-08 05:08, schreef Robert Burgess:
> 
>> You've read and followed the TeX Policy which is in the
>> tex-common package?
>>   
> I hadn't, but just took a look at it; thank you for pointing it out so
> that I can be sure I follow it.  I guess what confuses me the most is
> that CrossTeX is written in Python, and all of the information I can
> find assumes that everything about TeX is either in TeX macros itself or
> possibly C---what do I need to do about my Python library and script
> placement?

Check out http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
and make sure you also follow the guidelines in
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ ,
http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ and possibly
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/debian-emacs-policy if the
package provides an Emacs Lisp script.

To start, I would use "Alioth" first to test your package, and invite other
people to add your public APT repository to their own sources.list.  Alioth
is a platform where you can upload your test packages and add the
"Sources.gz" and "Packages.gz" files that were created resp. with
dpkg-scansources and dpkg-scanpackages.

Subscribe at http://alioth.debian.org/ to get a guest account.

HTH

--

-- 
(Continue reading)

Robert Burgess | 1 Feb 17:15 2008
Picon

Re: CrossTeX

> Check out http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/
> and make sure you also follow the guidelines in
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ ,
> http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ and possibly
> http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/debian-emacs-policy if the
> package provides an Emacs Lisp script.

This will be a lot of useful information!  I've already read the policy
and maintenance guide, but I had never noticed the Python policy and I
am sure it will help.  Are there any additional special cases I have to
consider because I want CrossTeX to be able to be a TeX (CTAN) package?

Robert

Frank Küster | 3 Feb 18:44 2008
Picon

Bug#460559: tetex-extra: aptitude remove tetex-extra fails

Paul Menzel <pm.debian <at> googlemail.com> wrote:

> I finally found [1] and the /usr/share/texmf-tetex (or texlive – I do
> not remember and I do not have access to the computer now) was not in my
> paths either. 

And you upgraded from an old machine to unstable, right?  We have added
the texlive path to TEXMFDIST during the sarge->etch upgrade, and AFAIR
we had a check for that (which failed with a user-friendly error
message). Now in the etch->lenny upgrade, we remove texmf-tetex and only
keep texmf-texlive.

This probably means that if someone skips a release (which is generally
not supported), they should manually remove tetex before upgrading
tex-common (the package wich contains the TEXMFDIST setting). 

The question is whether we want to care for this problem, or simply say
"You have been warnded"?

> Unfortunately there were no information about what tools
> to use, to modify the paths. 

Or rather, you did not find them. I'm not sure in which state your
system was.  But it seems you already had upgraded tex-common, you
should have found /usr/share/doc/tex-common/TeX-on-Debian*.  All
versions have a table of contents, and in the second chapter, "Changing
your configuration, file placement", the first section is "Available
TEXMF trees for users and system administrators" which contains the
necessary information or links to them.  

(Continue reading)

Frank Küster | 3 Feb 19:18 2008
Picon

SVN texlive (new) commit: r3270 - texlive-new/trunk/all/debian

Author: frank
Date: 2008-02-03 18:18:57 +0000 (Sun, 03 Feb 2008)
New Revision: 3270

Modified:
   texlive-new/trunk/all/debian/CHANGES.packaging
   texlive-new/trunk/all/debian/tpm2debcommon.pm
Log:
the doc package needs to depend on texlive-common, it
doesn't get this dependency as ordinary packages do

closes: 457270

[For the full diff, use svn diff.]

--

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

Frank Küster | 3 Feb 21:15 2008
Picon

Re: Bug#419235: Do you want to keep on maintaining pbox-tex?

Dear TeXLive team,

Lucas Nussbaum <lucas <at> lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

> But pbox-tex includes some documentation:
> /usr/share/doc/pbox-tex/pbox.dvi.gz
> /usr/share/doc/pbox-tex/pbox.pdf.gz
> /usr/share/doc/texmf/latex/pbox/pbox.dvi.gz
> /usr/share/doc/texmf/latex/pbox/pbox.pdf.gz
>
> Those files aren't in texlive-latex-extra-doc. Is that on purpose?

TeXLive contains pbox.sty, but not its documentation which could be
generated from pbox.dtx (also included). 

On CTAN, there's  the dtx and ins file and a pbox.pdf, which seems to
have been added in 2005. Thus it seems something needs to be done
manually? 

Regards, Frank
--

-- 
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Frank Küster | 3 Feb 21:47 2008
Picon

Re: (fwd) Re: dvips35.map disappearing from ls-R after force-purge-then-reinstall of tex-common

Norbert Preining <preining <at> logic.at> wrote:

>> >   2. In this particular case, we would be safe if:
>> > 
>> >        a) Every package that uses /var/lib/texmf/ depended on
>> >           tex-common (so that tex-common can wipe out the directory when
>> >           purged).
>> > 
>> >        b) Every non-optional file stored in /var/lib/texmf/ was
>> >           regenerated at configure time by the responsible package (so
>> >           that the sequence I gave in my previous mail doesn't cause any
>> >           file loss under /var/lib/texmf/).
>> > 
>> > As far as the pool files are concerned, this is static stuff,
>> > right? So, they are in the wrong TEXMF tree, IMHO. As for mfw.base,
>> > I don't know its purpose, so I cannot comment.
>> > 
>> I don't find the statement above in the "The Debian TEX sub-policy".
>> Isn't it worth to be put into it?

Which statement did you refer to - the one about pool files not
belonging to TEXMFVAR, or the one about mfw.base?

As for the latter, it seems that it is gone (texlive has mf and
mf-nowin, but not separate base files).

Regards, Frank

--

-- 
Frank Küster
(Continue reading)

Jordà Polo | 4 Feb 19:06 2008

Bug#456360: texlive-lang: Inaccurate package names

On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 11:16:07AM +0100, Jordà Polo wrote:
> OK. I have a few ideas, but I'm pretty busy at the moment. I'll think about
> it and try to come up with a consistent proposal. I'm not sure I'll succeed,
> but at least I'll try. Whatever the outcome, I'll surely reply to this bug
> in 2 months.

I finally had some time to take a look at this issue. At first I thought
it would be a matter of moving languages to the right group/family. But
it is not that easy since some collections are based on packages that
include resources for more than one language.

Frank Küster mentioned sizes, so let's take a look at the numbers. This
is the list of texlive-lang-* packages, sorted by Installed-Size:

   164 texlive-lang-italian 
   168 texlive-lang-latin 
   172 texlive-lang-danish 
   176 texlive-lang-manju 
   204 texlive-lang-finnish 
   204 texlive-lang-spanish 
   216 texlive-lang-ukenglish 
   248 texlive-lang-dutch 
   304 texlive-lang-portuguese 
   336 texlive-lang-swedish 
   356 texlive-lang-norwegian 
   356 texlive-lang-other 
   504 texlive-lang-hungarian 
   540 texlive-lang-hebrew 
   812 texlive-lang-croatian 
  1096 texlive-lang-german 
(Continue reading)

Frank Küster | 4 Feb 21:37 2008
Picon

Bug#456360: texlive-lang: Inaccurate package names

Jordà Polo <jorda <at> ettin.org> wrote:

> I finally had some time to take a look at this issue. 

Thank you, your help is very welcome. But, please, send this to the
texlive upstream list. If you prefer, you can keep the bug address in
the Cc, but the place to discuss this is the upstream mailing list. 

Of course, if you want to discuss it with the various people who have
taken part so far, you're also welcome to use the bugnumber address for
archiving. But don't expect us to react; both Norbert and I also read
the upstream mailing list, and we'll answer (if we've got anything to
contribute, that is) once you post there.

Remember that they don't know about the earlier parts of this
conversation... 

Regards, Frank
--

-- 
Frank Küster
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

Hilmar Preusse | 4 Feb 22:55 2008
X-Face
Picon

Bug#446476: natbib cannot handle utf8

On 13.10.07 martin f krafft (madduck <at> debian.org) wrote:

Hi,

> Package: texlive-latex-base
> Version: 2007-12
> 
> Thank you Donald!
> 
> As I think the issue is solved, I am reporting this as a bug
> against the Debian texlive-latex-base package. For more
> information:
> http://tug.org/pipermail/texhax/2007-October/009150.html
> 
That bug caused some discussions. The final result was: don't use
ucs!

How should we proceed now? Move ucs from texlive-latex-recommended to
texlive-latex-extra to narrow the user base of that package?

Hilmar
--

-- 
sigmentation fault


Gmane