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

Bug#186869: marked as forwarded (tetex-extra: Ancient version of pdfcrypt fails to cooperate)



Your message dated Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:14:38 +0200
with message-id <20030808131438.GB9097@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
has caused the Debian Bug report #186869,
regarding tetex-extra: Ancient version of pdfcrypt fails to cooperate
to be marked as having been forwarded to the upstream software
author(s) Thomas Esser <te@informatik.uni-hannover.de>, 186869-forwarded@bugs.debian.org.

(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 186869-forwarded) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Aug 2003 14:35:26 +0000
>From hille42@web.de Fri Aug 08 09:35:24 2003
Return-path: <hille42@web.de>
Received: from smtp02.web.de (smtp.web.de) [217.72.192.151] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 19l8Ky-000068-00; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 09:35:24 -0500
Received: from [213.7.23.128] (helo=preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de)
	by smtp.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #433)
	id 19l8Kr-0001uX-00; Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:35:22 +0200
Received: by preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 84CED476C; Fri,  8 Aug 2003 15:14:38 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:14:38 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
To: Thomas Esser <te@informatik.uni-hannover.de>,
	186869-forwarded@bugs.debian.org
Subject: (fwd) Bug#186869: tetex-extra: Ancient version of pdfcrypt fails to cooperate
Message-ID: <20030808131438.GB9097@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Organization: Hilmar Preusse Inc.
X-Uptime: 14:44:49 up 6 days, 19:28,  3 users,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.21 i686
X-www.distributed.net: OGR: 10 packets (1316.84 stats units) [2.33 Mnodes/s]
X-Confirmation-Request: yes
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Hilmar Preusse" <hille42@web.de>
Sender: hille42@web.de
Delivered-To: 186869-forwarded@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=4.0
	tests=BAYES_10,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,SIGNATURE_SHORT_SPARSE,
	      USER_AGENT_MUTT
	version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_07_20 (1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)

Hi Thomas,

Dunno, if it is a good idea to do that in upstream. Please bounce it
back if you think it is our job.
http://bugs.debian.org/186869

Regards,
   Hilmar
----- Forwarded message from Lars Steinke <lss@debian.org> -----

From: Lars Steinke <lss@debian.org>
Reply-To: Lars Steinke <lss@debian.org>, 186869@bugs.debian.org
To: 186869@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#186869: tetex-extra: Ancient version of pdfcrypt fails to cooperate
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 21:47:48 +0200
Message-ID: <20030330194748.GA7054@cip01.physik.uni-freiburg.de>
References: <E18zgfr-0006OQ-00@sigma.lsweb.de> <handler.186869.B.10490455868794.ack@bugs.debian.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-Mailing-List: <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/4315

Oh, I seem to see the problem here now. When checking with
http://www.tug.org/applications/pdftex/NEWS one reads the following:
"The extensions for pdf encryption have been removed, since they make the
pdfTeX code overly complex. Those needing pdf encryption are encouraged 
to produce a standalone program for encrypting pdfs."
One could use the PDF File Encryptor from PDFEverywhere.com, which is
unfortunately not compliant to DFSG...

This means you may close my bug record after removing the now obsolete
/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/oberdiek/pdfcrypt.sty in tetex-extra. Sorry !

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

----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
sigmentation fault



Reply to: