Bug#232056: marked as done (tetex-base: problem generating mf.base after upgrade)
Your message dated Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:42:53 +0100
with message-id <20040212154253.GG7333@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
and subject line Bug#232056: tetex-base: problem generating mf.base after upgrade
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; 10 Feb 2004 16:12:32 +0000
>From Pascal.Dupuis@esat.kuleuven.ac.be Tue Feb 10 08:12:31 2004
Return-path: <Pascal.Dupuis@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
Received: from nibbel.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.240.41]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1AqaUx-00015Y-00; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:12:31 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by nibbel.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A06B4B5E5
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:11:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.240.71])
by nibbel.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9EC4B4EE
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:11:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elen-09.esat.kuleuven.ac.be (elen-09.esat.kuleuven.ac.be [10.33.135.19])
by octavianus.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F7ABAEF47
for <submit@bugs.debian.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:11:58 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elen-09.esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix, from userid 2007)
id 89A4F1C3A8; Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:11:57 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Pascal A. Dupuis" <Pascal.Dupuis@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-base: problem generating mf.base after upgrade
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.39
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:11:57 +0100
Message-Id: <[🔎] 20040210161157.89A4F1C3A8@elen-09.esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
X-Virus-Scanned: by KULeuven Antivirus Cluster
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_01
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_01
X-Spam-Level:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 2.0.2-5.1
Severity: normal
Hello,
after upgrading tetex-base, I start getting strange messages about
problems generating font. I finally realised that mf.base
(/var/lib/texmf/web2c/mf.base) was empty. Running texconfig
regenerated a fresh one and solved this. So, maybe that the
install/upgrade procedure should take care of verifying this file is
not empty ?
Best regards
Pascal Dupuis
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux elen-09.esat.kuleuven.ac.be 2.4.23-ow2 #20 Tue Jan 6 08:59:55 CET 2004 i686
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8
Versions of packages tetex-base depends on:
ii debconf 1.3.22 Debian configuration management sy
ii dpkg 1.10.18 Package maintenance system for Deb
ii texinfo 4.6-1 Documentation system for on-line i
-- debconf information:
tetex-base/olddat: true
tetex-base/oldcfg: true
tetex-base/oldupdm: true
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 232056-done) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Feb 2004 15:43:30 +0000
>From Pascal.Dupuis@esat.kuleuven.ac.be Thu Feb 12 07:43:30 2004
Return-path: <Pascal.Dupuis@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
Received: from rusty.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.240.42]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1ArIzx-0005DM-00; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 07:43:30 -0800
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by rusty.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A56D1D7218
for <232056-done@bugs.debian.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:42:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from antonius.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (antonius.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be [134.58.240.73])
by rusty.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 052071D72AB
for <232056-done@bugs.debian.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:42:57 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elen-09.esat.kuleuven.ac.be (elen-09.esat.kuleuven.ac.be [10.33.135.19])
by antonius.kulnet.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E744C0D1
for <232056-done@bugs.debian.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:42:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elen-09.esat.kuleuven.ac.be (Postfix, from userid 2007)
id 933761C3A5; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:42:53 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:42:53 +0100
From: "Pascal A. Dupuis" <Pascal.Dupuis@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
To: 232056-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#232056: tetex-base: problem generating mf.base after upgrade
Message-ID: <20040212154253.GG7333@esat.kuleuven.ac.be>
References: <[🔎] 20040212083530.GA7314@esat.kuleuven.ac.be> <[🔎] 87znbo35vc.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch> <[🔎] 20040212132717.GD7333@esat.kuleuven.ac.be> <[🔎] 873c9gz860.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch> <[🔎] 20040212145622.GE7333@esat.kuleuven.ac.be> <[🔎] 87n07oxqlj.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 87n07oxqlj.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
X-Virus-Scanned: by KULeuven Antivirus Cluster
Delivered-To: 232056-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_12
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=HAS_BUG_NUMBER autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_02_12
X-Spam-Level:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 04:30:32PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> "Pascal A. Dupuis" <Pascal.Dupuis@esat.kuleuven.ac.be> schrieb:
>
> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 03:25:43PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> >> This doesn't answer my question - did you do the upgrade of tetex-base
> >> before that purge or after it? If you did, this is a possible
> >> explanation for the failure to build base.fmt. If not, there must be a
> >> real bug.
> >
> > Before, so, according to Murphy's law, chances are that the available
> > space was too low.
>
> Hm, so this isn't really a bug in the package. Would you be so kind and
> close it, by sending a mail to 232056-done@bugs.debian.org?
>
Done, as the cause was insufficient space on /var
Pascal Dupuis
--
Dr. ir. Pascal Dupuis
K. U. Leuven, ESAT/ELECTA (formerly ELEN): http://www.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/
Kasteelpark Arenberg, 10; B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee, Belgium
Tel. +32-16-32 10 21 -- Fax +32-16-32 19 85
Reply to: