Re: Bug#265743: debian-reference: FTBFS: tetex-bin changes?
Osamu Aoki <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 19:51:31 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>> > Transcript written on pdflatex.log.
>> > fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.fmt installed.
>> > (Fatal format file error; I'm stymied)
>> > debiandoc2latexpdf: ERROR: reference.en.pdf could not be generated properly
>> > make: *** [reference.en.pdf] Error 1
>> > I assume this has to do with the recent changes to tetex-bin, but I'm not
>> > really sure.
> Sigh :-( I am wondering how TeX/LaTeX folks feel about RC bugs on
> documentation packages due to recent TeX/LaTeX package situation. Look
> at Bug #265247 (or #265247), #265611, #264394, #263840, ... it ain't
> pretty sight.
> I do not feel like adding build script hack now to package just to get
> away for FTBFS serious bug unless TeX/LaTeX is stabilized.
In my opinion, the way debian-reference (and others?) worked around
tetex's poor language handling is plainly wrong.
As far as I understand it, you want to generate pdf's in various
languages and need hyphenation enabled for each of them. Because of
teTeX's previously poor handling of languages, you enabled them in a
local format file you created during package build, right?
- First of all, this is no longer needed. In a noninteractive or
hit-ENTER-always install, you get a language.dat with patterns enabled
for all available languages.
- Instead of making a workaround in the package (namely, building a
local format file), you should have complained with the teTeX
maintainers earlier. Then we would probably have come up with the
"default-all" solution earlier.
> I know TeX/LaTeX has been quite actively updated. IMHO, it should be
> very stable when FREEZE starts. But reality is not. If you think about
> TeX/LateX, it is like GCC for C program. We should not make major change
> with incompatibility at this late moment. But it happened.
Yes, it happened. I didn't feel too well with some of the last
changes. But as for the eTeX transition, I must say, I didn't envisage
any problems. I simply didn't assume that package maintainers made such
ugly workarounds instead of requesting us to do the changes they needed.
> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 11:07:47PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
>> Looks like it. Changing bin/debiandoc2latexpdf's "pdflatex" call to a
>> "pdfelatex" one seems to be a workaround.
> If new "pdfelatex" is needed, why this was not offered as an alternative
> of pdflatex so it does not break build script. Is this already fix?
I do not completely understand how this workaround helps. But pdfelatex
is and was available - what alternatives should we have offered?
And, more importantly, do the problems still occur with
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie