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

Bug#108588: marked as done (Reverse search)



Your message dated Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:03:08 +0200
with message-id <20030815100308.GA14232@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
and subject line Bug#108588: Reverse search
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 maintonly) by bugs.debian.org; 13 Aug 2001 09:56:35 +0000
>From djalil.chafai@laposte.net Mon Aug 13 04:56:35 2001
Return-path: <djalil.chafai@laposte.net>
Received: from smtprt15.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.210] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
	id 15WESZ-00032o-00; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 04:56:35 -0500
Received: from citronier.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.222) by smtprt15.wanadoo.fr; 13 Aug 2001 11:56:02 +0200
Received: from sakapuss.homeip.net (193.253.187.240) by citronier.wanadoo.fr; 13 Aug 2001 11:55:47 +0200
Received: (qmail 21954 invoked by uid 1000); 13 Aug 2001 09:55:45 -0000
Message-ID: <20010813095545.21953.qmail@sakapuss.pas.tres.net>
From: "Djalil Chafai" <djalil.chafai@laposte.net>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <maintonly@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: Reverse search
X-Reportbug-Version: 1.23
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.23
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 11:55:45 +0200
Delivered-To: maintonly@bugs.debian.org

Package: tetex-bin
Version: 1.0.7+20001218-5
Severity: wishlist

Hi,

I would be nice if teTeX supports automatic including of \srcspecials
for reverse search (in tex and xdvi), like what was done for MikTeX 
under MS-Windows.

Cheers,

Dj.


-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux sakapuss.pas.tres.net 2.4.7-xfs #1 lun aoû 6 12:24:01 CEST 2001 i686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR

Versions of packages tetex-bin depends on:
ii  debianutils            1.15              Miscellaneous utilities specific t
ii  dpkg                   1.9.16            Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  ed                     0.2-19            The classic unix line editor
ii  libc6                  2.2.3-9           GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libkpathsea3           1.0.7+20001218-5  shared libkpathsea for teTeX
ii  libpng2                1.0.12-2          PNG library - runtime
ii  libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2 1:2.95.4-0.010810 The GNU stdc++ library
ii  libtiff3g              3.5.5-6           Tag Image File Format library
ii  libwww0                5.3.2-5           The W3C-WWW library.
ii  libxaw7                4.1.0-2           X Athena widget set library
ii  perl-base              5.6.1-5           The Pathologically Eclectic Rubbis
ii  tetex-base             1.0.2+20000804-9  basic teTeX library files
ii  xlibs                  4.1.0-2           X Window System client libraries
ii  zlib1g                 1:1.1.3-15        compression library - runtime


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 108588-close) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Aug 2003 10:07:18 +0000
>From hille42@web.de Fri Aug 15 05:07:15 2003
Return-path: <hille42@web.de>
Received: from smtp01.web.de (smtp.web.de) [217.72.192.180] 
	by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
	id 19nbUJ-00031m-00; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 05:07:15 -0500
Received: from [213.7.204.212] (helo=preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de)
	by smtp.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.99 #448)
	id 19nbUD-0007dr-00
	for 108588-close@bugs.debian.org; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:07:11 +0200
Received: by preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id DC9EA4768; Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:03:08 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:03:08 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <hilmar_preusse@web.de>
To: 108588-close@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#108588: Reverse search
Message-ID: <20030815100308.GA14232@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
References: <20010813095545.21953.qmail@sakapuss.pas.tres.net> <[🔎] 20030815060804.GA3963@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20030815060804.GA3963@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Organization: Hilmar Preusse Inc.
X-Uptime: 12:00:04 up 1 day, 21:26,  5 users,  load average: 1.26, 1.27, 1.16
X-Operating-System: Linux 2.4.21 i686
X-www.distributed.net: OGR: 3 packets (473.16 stats units) [2.29 Mnodes/s]
X-Confirmation-Request: yes
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Hilmar Preusse" <hille42@web.de>
Sender: hille42@web.de
Delivered-To: 108588-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-15.5 required=4.0
	tests=BAYES_01,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,MAILTO_TO_SPAM_ADDR,
	      QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,QUOTE_TWICE_1,REFERENCES,
	      REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MUTT
	autolearn=ham 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)

On 15.08.03 Hilmar Preusse (hille42@web.de) wrote:
> On 13.08.01 Djalil Chafai (djalil.chafai@laposte.net) wrote:

Hi,

> > I would be nice if teTeX supports automatic including of
> > \srcspecials for reverse search (in tex and xdvi), like what was
> > done for MikTeX under MS-Windows.
> > 
> Actually these functions are provided by xdvi in Debian stable), as
> the xdvi-maintainer confirmed. Unfortunately we need to install
> additionally 2 style-files, which seem not to be part of the upstream
> texmf-tree (see the manpage for xdvi). Is it OK to close that bug
> now or should we forward the inclusion wish to Thomas?
> 
Reply to myself: Not good.
You you need that these 2 stly files, just call latex with the option
-src-specials to get that special dvi-file. For further informations
please refer to the web2c-info pages.

So I guess we can close that bug.

Hilmar 
-- 
sigmentation fault



Reply to: