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

Re: tetex-bin: fmtutil: Error! Not all formats have been built successfully.



On 26.04.04 Chr. Emanuel Gydesen (gyde@gyde.dk) wrote:

Hey,

> Can eny one help me with this problem, let me know if you need more
> information!
> 
> All the logfiles contain this:
> 
> <SNIP>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ! You are attempting to make a LaTeX format from a source file That
> ! is more than one year old.
> !
> ! If you enter <return> to scroll past this message then the format
> ! will be built, but please consider obtaining newer source files
> ! before continuing to build LaTeX.
> !
> ! LaTeX is re-issued every 6 months, in June and December.
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> </SNIP>
> 
This is clear. Your LaTeX-input files for building the formats are
too old. Do you have installed tetex-2.0.2? Or is this a bug report
for !sarge?

> <SNIP>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !! Patch file `ltpatch.ltx' (for version <2001/06/01>)
> !! is not suitable for version <1999/12/01> of LaTeX.
> 
> !! Please check if initex found an old patch file:
> !! --- if so, rename it or delete it, and redo the
> !! initex run.
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> </SNIP>
> 
I guess, you have hanging arounds some very old LaTeX sources in your
texmf-tree. Even woody has "LaTeX2e <2001/06/01>", so this is either
a potato installation or that stuff sits in your local texmf-tree.

> Now what can I do to fix this, problem?
> 
Find out, where the old stuff comes from and delete it, if it is
sitiing outside of the package management.

> Whay don't I get newer source files automatic?
> 
Even tetex-2.x has LaTeX <2001/06/01> and I guess, that won't change
before sarge. We (debian-tetex-maint) should consider putting a new
LaTeX-release into sarge.

H. 
-- 
Be consistent.
             -- Larry Wall in the perl man page
  http://hilmarpreusse.forum-rheinland.de/



Reply to: