Bug#182602: marked as done (tetex-extra: beton.sty not included)
Your message dated Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:03:12 -0500
with message-id <E18pyxk-0001GV-00@auric.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#182602: fixed in tetex-base 2.0.2-1
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; 26 Feb 2003 20:22:54 +0000
>From sergio@astroscu.unam.mx Wed Feb 26 14:22:54 2003
Return-path: <sergio@astroscu.unam.mx>
Received: from cosmos.astroscu.unam.mx (aluxa) [132.248.1.225]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18o84l-0005oM-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:22:53 -0600
Received: from sergio by aluxa with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 18o84b-0001Ui-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:22:37 -0600
From: Sergio Mendoza <sergio@astroscu.unam.mx>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-extra: beton.sty not included
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:22:36 -0600
Reply-To: sergio@astroscu.unam.mx
Message-Id: <E18o84b-0001Ui-00@aluxa>
Sender: Sergio Mendoza <sergio@astroscu.unam.mx>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=4.0
tests=HAS_PACKAGE,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
Package: tetex-extra
Version: 1.0.2+20011202-3
Severity: normal
This version of tetex-extra does not include the beton.sty package.
The beton class is included in tetex-src. I think something was not
correct when building the tetex-extra package from the tetex-src while
doing everything automatically.
Sergio.
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux aluxa 2.4.19-k6 #1 Tue Nov 19 02:01:40 EST 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii dpkg 1.10.9 Package maintenance system for Deb
ii gsfonts 6.0-2.1 Fonts for the ghostscript interpre
ii tetex-base 1.0.2+20011202-3 basic teTeX library files
ii tetex-bin 1.0.7+20011202-8 teTeX binary files
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 182602-close) by bugs.debian.org; 3 Mar 2003 23:08:11 +0000
>From katie@auric.debian.org Mon Mar 03 17:08:11 2003
Return-path: <katie@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 18pz2Z-0001ER-00; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:08:11 -0600
Received: from katie by auric.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 18pyxk-0001GV-00; Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:03:12 -0500
From: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
To: 182602-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.32 $
Subject: Bug#182602: fixed in tetex-base 2.0.2-1
Message-Id: <E18pyxk-0001GV-00@auric.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@auric.debian.org>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 18:03:12 -0500
Delivered-To: 182602-close@bugs.debian.org
We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:
tetex-base_2.0.2-1.diff.gz
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2-1.diff.gz
tetex-base_2.0.2-1.dsc
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2-1.dsc
tetex-base_2.0.2-1_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2-1_all.deb
tetex-base_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz
tetex-doc_2.0.2-1_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_2.0.2-1_all.deb
tetex-extra_2.0.2-1_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_2.0.2-1_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 182602@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org> (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-----
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.7
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 07:57:31 +0900
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Atsuhito KOHDA <kohda@debian.org>
Description:
tetex-base - basic teTeX library files
tetex-doc - teTeX documentation
tetex-extra - extra teTeX library files
Closes: 182556 182602
Changes:
tetex-base (2.0.2-1) unstable; urgency=low
.
* New Upstream Release.
* Added *.tcx files in texmf/web2c [kohda] (Closes: #182556)
* Installed web2c/mktex.cnf, formerly installed in tetex-bin. [kohda]
* /etc/texmf/language.dat was a configuration file and not a conffile,
and now it could be handled automatically with debconf with the new
tetex-bin (>> 2.0.1-2). [kohda]
* Removed g-brief because its license problem. [kohda]
* beton.sty was included in the upstream because it was free (LPPL) now.
[kohda] (Closes: #182602)
Files:
226617920853ae60740b2e9441172af9 792 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2-1.dsc
e2f438a3030d897afa952b4ed6555fa8 52143656 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2.orig.tar.gz
f40dc2d786141b472a6ed6e764053561 36034 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2-1.diff.gz
7036a78ff3dfff7f0b7db18e7373afbd 13998102 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2-1_all.deb
da2233a5e0f819452303a03273329023 10497532 tex optional tetex-extra_2.0.2-1_all.deb
3a25278017b0ed7def319f491cf68baa 27453982 doc optional tetex-doc_2.0.2-1_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+YrI81IXdL1v6kOwRAqCmAJ905KYSxZdJezqwBcmj7nDYfjfxRwCfSN6p
0p9vvWta7JGn2lI3GmuyUM4=
=eeVl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: