Installed jadetex 2.20-1 (all source)
Installed:
jadetex_2.20.orig.tar.gz
to dists/woody/main/source/tex/jadetex_2.20.orig.tar.gz
replacing jadetex_2.18.orig.tar.gz
jadetex_2.20-1.diff.gz
to dists/woody/main/source/tex/jadetex_2.20-1.diff.gz
replacing jadetex_2.18-2.diff.gz
jadetex_2.20-1.dsc
to dists/woody/main/source/tex/jadetex_2.20-1.dsc
replacing jadetex_2.18-2.dsc
jadetex_2.20-1_all.deb
to dists/woody/main/binary-all/tex/jadetex_2.20-1.deb
replacing jadetex_2.18-2.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Format: 1.6
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000 22:39:20 -0400
Source: jadetex
Binary: jadetex
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.20-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Adam Di Carlo <aph@debian.org>
Description:
jadetex - LaTeX macros for SGML to DVI/PS/PDF conversion with Jade
Closes: 69551
Changes:
jadetex (2.20-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* new upstream version
* debian/copyright: update
* debian/README: talk about pdfjadetex only capacity errors and the
'\LabelElementsfalse' hack
* debian/postrm: remove /etc/texmf/jadetex on purge
(closes: Bug#69551)
* debian/postinst: if we have to resort to 'fmtutil -all', redirect that
output to the log file at least; add a condition to check for failure
due to tetex-extra Bug#67549 so I don't get swamped with bug reports;
use stderr rather than stdout for errors and warnings; postinst is
still too chatty however, maybe at some point I'll debconf it
* debian/rules: clean is a bit cleaner
Files:
9731ca7977148008e787a7721fe40145 667 tex optional jadetex_2.20-1.dsc
d829d50676971bdd4f0d9b91f17ee19b 137728 tex optional jadetex_2.20.orig.tar.gz
63bb14480ca89b36fa3638b2b1747854 10698 tex optional jadetex_2.20-1.diff.gz
65e72465c6ca0291910fa7943fc09d2b 161120 tex optional jadetex_2.20-1_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBOekZZ4/8QF79WmfNAQFunQP/fRso/EzcMrqQ4ZP7vvXUkSNu1mqUoj4j
+9O7newaGQbTyqj7pFkAZ9nwSZEZa+HTMkbXuJ4IkssPNktWDDNlpzdlB30lytvU
HrAscD0FLAZoLfckpLnsU2Syc7s7DY2XpuYL+JV33ZxmlK4fN6eo7i6IAT/7lYo3
EOgnvUJDxeU=
=DTYj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: