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

Bug#111284: marked as done (Contains non-free files / overlap with gsfonts)



Your message dated Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:49:39 -0500
with message-id <E1670mx-00034N-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#111284: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20000804a-1
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; 5 Sep 2001 07:34:51 +0000
>From jdassen@odin.cistron-office.nl Wed Sep 05 02:34:51 2001
Return-path: <jdassen@odin.cistron-office.nl>
Received: from 10fwd.cistron-office.nl (smtp.cistron-office.nl) [195.64.65.197] (mail)
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 15eXD1-00068e-00; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 02:34:51 -0500
Received: from odin.cistron-office.nl ([195.64.65.236] helo=odin)
	by smtp.cistron-office.nl with smtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian))
	id 15eXCw-0007zx-00; Wed, 05 Sep 2001 09:34:46 +0200
Received: by odin (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 5 Sep 2001 09:34:46 +0200
From: "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <jdassen@odin.cistron-office.nl>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Contains non-free files / overlap with gsfonts
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.25
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.25
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2001 09:34:46 +0200
Bcc: "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <jdassen@odin.cistron-office.nl>
Message-Id: <E15eXCw-0007zx-00@smtp.cistron-office.nl>
X-BadReturnPath: jdassen@odin rewritten as jdassen@odin.cistron-office.nl
  using "From" header
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Package: tetex-extra
Version: 1.0.2+20000804-9
Severity: Serious

On a system that has both tetex-extra and gsfonts installed, doing

cd /tmp
od -c /usr/share/fonts/type1/gsfonts/n019003l.pfb > pfb-from-gsfonts
od -c /usr/share/texmf/fonts/type1/urw/helvetic/uhvr8a.pfb > pfb-from-tetex-extra
diff -u0 pfb-from-gsfonts pfb-from-tetex-extra

results in

--- pfb-from-gsfonts    Wed Sep  5 09:22:52 2001
+++ pfb-from-tetex-extra        Wed Sep  5 09:22:52 2001
@@ -14,2 +14,2 @@
-0000320       t   h   e       f   i   l   e       C   O   P   Y   I   N
-0000340   G       (   G   N   U       G   e   n   e   r   a   l       P
+0000320       t   h   e       f   i   l   e       P   U   B   L   I   C
+0000340       (   A   l   a   d   d   i   n       F   r   e   e       P
@@ -44,3 +44,3 @@
-0001260   .       S   e   e       t   h   e       f   i   l   e       C
-0001300   O   P   Y   I   N   G       (   G   N   U       G   e   n   e
-0001320   r   a   l       P   u   b   l   i   c       L   i   c   e   n
+0001260   .       S   e   e       t   h   e       f   i   l   e       P
+0001300   U   B   L   I   C       (   A   l   a   d   d   i   n       F
+0001320   r   e   e       P   u   b   l   i   c       L   i   c   e   n

I.e. tetex-extra contains at least one file that is essentially identical to
one in gsfonts, except for being non-free (AFPL rather than GPL).

"grep -lr 'Aladdin Free Public License' /usr/share/texmf/fonts | wc -l"
suggests that there are 70 files in tetex-extra that are non-free, all of
them afm or pfb files. Presumably, free versions of all of these are part of
GPLed ghostscript.

These files should be replaced by a free version, and preferably tetex-extra
should depend on gsfonts and reuse the files from that package (e.g. through
symlinks) rather than wasting space by containing duplicates.

-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux odin 2.4.9-ac6 #1 Mon Sep 3 09:43:15 CEST 2001 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=en_US.ISO8859-1

Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii  dpkg                  1.9.17             Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  gsfonts               6.0-2              Fonts for the ghostscript interpre
ii  perl-base [perl5-base 5.6.1-5            The Pathologically Eclectic Rubbis
ii  tetex-base            1.0.2+20000804-9   basic teTeX library files
ii  tetex-bin             1.0.7+20001218-5.1 teTeX binary files


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 111284-close) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Nov 2001 20:49:40 +0000
>From troup@auric.debian.org Thu Nov 22 14:49:40 2001
Return-path: <troup@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 1670my-0004Lp-00; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 14:49:40 -0600
Received: from troup by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 1670mx-00034N-00; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:49:39 -0500
From: Christoph Martin <christoph.martin@uni-mainz.de>
To: 111284-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.65 $
Subject: Bug#111284: fixed in tetex-base 1.0.2+20000804a-1
Message-Id: <E1670mx-00034N-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: James Troup <troup@auric.debian.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 15:49:39 -0500
Delivered-To: 111284-close@bugs.debian.org

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

tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1.diff.gz
tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1.dsc
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1.dsc
tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1_all.deb
tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a.orig.tar.gz
tetex-doc_1.0.2+20000804a-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_1.0.2+20000804a-1_all.deb
tetex-extra_1.0.2+20000804a-1_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_1.0.2+20000804a-1_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 111284@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Christoph Martin <christoph.martin@uni-mainz.de> (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-----

Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 19:17:40 +0100
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-base tetex-doc tetex-extra
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.0.2+20000804a-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Christoph Martin <christoph.martin@uni-mainz.de>
Description: 
 tetex-base - basic teTeX library files
 tetex-doc  - teTeX documentation
 tetex-extra - extra teTeX library files
Closes: 111284 111289 119191 119531 120300
Changes: 
 tetex-base (1.0.2+20000804a-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * fix copyrights in gs fonts (closes: #111284, #111289)
   * remove predepends on essential package perl(5)-base (closes: #120300)
   * add latin9.def and latin10.def (closes: #119531)
   * added correct psnfss.html (closes: #119191)
Files: 
 02a5eca290e7a39708809f1b3534b696 1065 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1.dsc
 b65c2508ccbbf3f99455941722370cad 35110813 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a.orig.tar.gz
 cf218df13b170d037d5c5c776a1fc9d3 27963 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1.diff.gz
 96388c6ea44ebd31dd083bfdc1e2b035 13165628 tex optional tetex-base_1.0.2+20000804a-1_all.deb
 7cf95c65db8099235e7e087be9ed49cc 9712134 tex optional tetex-extra_1.0.2+20000804a-1_all.deb
 06188acbc94b91104918ed66bc130412 12380996 tex optional tetex-doc_1.0.2+20000804a-1_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iQEVAwUBO/1RBm4/9k35XC9tAQEnNwf8CPxtumN3xMS/ULHqw62vNTadp6O+AaEg
NGiIrAz55bZvcWvx7hGA7jPzGys/VSJV1j+y+sJLbsoIgeciJqA8fWyWGx6BoVj2
tHLlWOwH8uZIJO9I6MGbJGeBuFdfOyZcqUt7xW4qRv/jAjTwj057xIAz2EbSGyuI
XRDJtG+4M38cNVGAXghfPbj1dnFWWmaDzYJ46HV+RkP47V87/SeWuBFuYhd3r9No
KGoA/BubSr+plg1bHZwZ9pqnb6yXWu6GvR0IYHEeM6Wh8Ps4H2zZahOAnbMRRBPH
4QlBNiBvbjwt7ensUSr4q+vg6ONNbTBrJXtMpJHcwM4QvYr0QzzS9Q==
=Sxxa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: