Bug#273244: (no subject)
Matt Swift <swift@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In any case, I have just tried to reproduce the problem and
> update-texmf now seems to work as intended. Earlier today I updated
> fifty or more Debian packages, however, including at least one
> tetex-related package, so I don't think I can recreate the problem
> now.
It was probably a known bug, fixed in 2.0.2-22:
,----
| * Bug #267734 was not really fixed by the last upload because of a typo
| in the postinst script, thanks to Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>
| (see discussion in debian-tetex-maint with 269416 in the
| subject). [frank]
`----
> I would not be surprised if the problem involved ucf, which has
> been at the root of several headaches with updates of the mailscanner
> package recently.
No, in this case it wasn't. It was (first) a thinko on our side, and
later a typo in the postinst script ($$ETXMFC instead of $ETXMFC, which
expanded to $process-idETCMFC instead of /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf), not in
update-texmf.
> I wanted to clarify the reason for my initial report, which was
> obscured by my poor attempt to substantiate it. But since I can no
> longer reproduce the problem, then I suppose you ought to leave this
> report as a wishlist regarding the output of the -v option to
> update-texmf.
Yes, thank you.
> (If
> the temp file is deleted automatically, then perhaps the -d or a new
> -d(ebug) option should inhibit deletion.)
good suggestion, thanks again.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: