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

Bug#209395: teTeX: language.dat mislinked



On 26.11.03 Atsuhito Kohda (kohda@pm.tokushima-u.ac.jp) wrote:

Hi,

> Hmm, it looked to me that pdflatex worked fine with lshort. What
> happend with you in fact?
> 
Which version did you try? 4.00, which comes with teTeX and hence
with Debian, or 4.12 available from CTAN? We're speaking about the
latter.

> > > >without the fonts having installed (tested on stable). Is the last
> > > >statement still correct for the xdvi in unstable (Stefan?).
> 
> It's so long document so I might overlook something but xdvi in
> unstable seemed to display correctly.
> 
Yes, it does. Tested on Knoppix (snapshot from Debian unstable
bootable from CD-ROM). Of course it's not able to display the fonts
if they're not installed, but the error is just ignored silently and
the fonts displayed with cmr10 IIRC.

> I'm not so well understand the DFSG but there is a following
> statement in policy;
> 
> 2.2.1. The main section
> -----------------------
> 
>      Every package in _main_ and _non-US/main_ must comply with the
>      DFSG (Debian Free Software Guidelines).
> 
>      In addition, the packages in _main_
>         * must not require a package outside of _main_ for
>           compilation or execution (thus, the package must not
>           declare a "Depends", "Recommends", or "Build-Depends"
>           relationship on a non-_main_ package),
> 
So I think everything is OK. We deliver out teTeX without the fonts
and the related sty-files.
1. xdvi and dvips are able to handle missing fonts.
2. The document will arrive in Debian pre-compiled. So there is no
necessity to provide the users with the sty-files.
If anybody wants to compile that stuff himself and want to provide a
package to do that: feel free to do so, but that is (IMHO) not the
problem of teTeX. For simply building the dvi-file one need only the
tfm-files, which are freely available.

> BTW, this issue was already different from what the title told, I
> guess.  About language.dat in the latest package, it was renamed
> language.dat.dpkg-old under /etc in case upgrading and there will
> be no language.dat under /etc in case fresh installation, I
> believe.
> 
Nope the whole subthread has nothing to do with the original
submission, however I still agree with the submitter, that
language.dat should go into /etc.

H. 
-- 
sigmentation fault



Reply to: