[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#171196: marked as done (tetex-bin: 1.0.7+20021025-3 missing cfg files, xdvi unhappy)



Your message dated Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:32:38 -0500
with message-id <E18LFaw-0007XU-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#171196: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20021025-3
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; 29 Nov 2002 19:33:09 +0000
>From pme@devphil.com Fri Nov 29 13:33:09 2002
Return-path: <pme@devphil.com>
Received: from adsl-66-72-131-156.dsl.dytnoh.ameritech.net (fenric.devphil.com) [66.72.131.156] 
	by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 18Hqsu-00064F-00; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 13:33:08 -0600
Received: (qmail 21586 invoked by uid 1000); 29 Nov 2002 19:32:36 -0000
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 14:32:36 -0500
From: Phil Edwards <pme@devphil.com>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-bin: 1.0.7+20021025-3 missing cfg files, xdvi unhappy
Message-ID: <20021129193236.GA20802@fenric>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-Reportbug-Version: 2.9
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0
	tests=SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01,USER_AGENT,
	      USER_AGENT_MUTT
	version=2.41
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: tetex-bin
Version: 1.0.7+20021025-3
Severity: normal

The package in testing contains /usr/share/texmf/xdvi/xdvi.cfg which
xdvi expects to find.  (The man page says so, strongly, at the bottom.)
The package in unstable removes these files, causing to xdvi to complain
at startup, and to have trouble displaying the correct fonts.

While looking around a machine running 'testing' to find a copy of
xdvi.cfg, I noticed that the ps2pk.map file is also missing.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux fenric 2.4.19 #1 SMP Fri Aug 30 12:06:15 EDT 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages tetex-bin depends on:
ii  debconf                 1.2.16           Debian configuration management sy
ii  debianutils             2.0.2            Miscellaneous utilities specific t
ii  dpkg                    1.10.9           Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  ed                      0.2-19           The classic unix line editor
ii  libc6                   2.3.1-5          GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libkpathsea3            1.0.7+20021025-3 shared libkpathsea for teTeX
ii  libpng12-0              1.2.5-6          PNG library - runtime
ii  libwww-ssl0 [libwww0]   5.4.0-5          The W3C-WWW library (SSL support)
ii  libxaw7                 4.2.1-4          X Athena widget set library
ii  perl-tk                 1:800.024-1.1    Perl module providing the Tk graph
ii  t1lib1                  1.3.1-1          Type 1 font rasterizer library - r
ii  tetex-base              1.0.2+20021025-1 basic teTeX library files
ii  xlibs                   4.2.1-4          X Window System client libraries
ii  zlib1g                  1:1.1.4-8        compression library - runtime

-- debconf information:
* tetex-bin/groupname: users
* tetex-bin/userperm: false
* tetex-bin/groupperm: true
* tetex-bin/lsr-perms: true


-- 
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
                                                 - Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 171196-close) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Dec 2002 04:38:22 +0000
>From katie@auric.debian.org Sun Dec 08 22:38:22 2002
Return-path: <katie@auric.debian.org>
Received: from auric.debian.org [206.246.226.45] (mail)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 18LFgT-0004SH-00; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 22:38:21 -0600
Received: from katie by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 18LFaw-0007XU-00; Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:32:38 -0500
From: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
To: 171196-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.28 $
Subject: Bug#171196: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20021025-3
Message-Id: <E18LFaw-0007XU-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@auric.debian.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 23:32:38 -0500
Delivered-To: 171196-close@bugs.debian.org

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3.diff.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3.diff.gz
tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3.dsc
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3.dsc
tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb
tetex-doc_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb
tetex-extra_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 171196@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org> (supplier of updated tetex-base package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Mon,  2 Dec 2002 08:05:11 +0900
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.0.2+20021025-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
Description: 
 tetex-base - basic teTeX library files
 tetex-doc  - teTeX documentation
 tetex-extra - extra teTeX library files
Closes: 51586 78640 127893 133589 139085 153891 156406 169902 170102 170592 171196 171913
Changes: 
 tetex-base (1.0.2+20021025-3) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Changed Conflicts: revtex4 (<= 4.0-2) as the revtex4 maintainer,
     Alexei Kaminski, kindly made a dummy revtex4 4.0-3 for smooth upgrade.
     I would like to express the greatest thanks to Alexei Kaminski!
     (Closes: #169902)
   * Now provided xdvi.cfg  [kohda]  (Closes: #171196, #171913)
   * Fixed config.ps with patch-tmp.  Now dvips was in secure mode by default
     and '-R' option should work fine.  This will be fixed in the upstream
     soon, so we should remove this modification at that instance!  [kohda]
     (Closes: #51586, #127893, #133589, #139085, #156406)
   * Removed tetex-extra.preinst and preinst completely.  [advised by jdg and
     done by kohda]  (Closes: #170592)
    - I believe this would fix the failure of installation
      (Closes: #78640, #153891, #170102)
   * Removed listings.*, this package might be not DFSG-free.  [kohda]
Files: 
 3dd1dc5cefa0daab4cc85d708e6a669a 807 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3.dsc
 539a5834663c6d1633486cb4c53b9037 35831 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3.diff.gz
 749eefa579d4263eb6460af12a1d5492 17695460 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb
 e3e4ac66bf5782d63a5c6ce617256f6b 10301232 tex optional tetex-extra_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb
 edff402392eec4447612560c27d44f50 21100222 tex optional tetex-doc_1.0.2+20021025-3_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE99AVF1IXdL1v6kOwRAlAgAJwNcWfGVEtKp9ZD00wml668Li0Y9wCbBHDo
/vMezdXxJV+5DMYk/HwxVeE=
=vUvQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: