Bug#245502: marked as done (tetex-base: Fails to install)
Your message dated Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:32:46 -0400
with message-id <E1BIr3G-0003bX-00@newraff.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#245502: fixed in tetex-base 2.0.2-8
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; 23 Apr 2004 14:43:33 +0000
>From buildd@sarti.debian.org Fri Apr 23 07:43:33 2004
Return-path: <buildd@sarti.debian.org>
Received: from sarti.debian.org [212.240.194.173]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BH1tt-0002Di-00; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:43:33 -0700
Received: from buildd by sarti.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BH1tr-0006ZA-00; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:43:31 +0100
From: "Debian/HPPA non-US Build Daemon" <lamont@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-base: Fails to install
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 15:43:31 +0100
Message-Id: <[🔎] E1BH1tr-0006ZA-00@sarti.debian.org>
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 1
Package: tetex-base
Version: 2.0.2-7
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Missing Depends: ucf.
> Setting up tetex-base (2.0.2-7) ...
> /usr/share/tetex-base/setup-ucf: line 28: ucf: command not found
> dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--configure):
> subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 127
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 245502-close) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Apr 2004 15:38:34 +0000
>From katie@ftp-master.debian.org Wed Apr 28 08:38:34 2004
Return-path: <katie@ftp-master.debian.org>
Received: from newraff.debian.org [208.185.25.31] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BIr8s-0005ox-00; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:38:34 -0700
Received: from katie by newraff.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BIr3G-0003bX-00; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:32:46 -0400
From: =?utf-8?q?Frank_K=C3=BCster?= <frank@debian.org>
To: 245502-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.49 $
Subject: Bug#245502: fixed in tetex-base 2.0.2-8
Message-Id: <E1BIr3G-0003bX-00@newraff.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@ftp-master.debian.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:32:46 -0400
Delivered-To: 245502-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
X-CrossAssassin-Score: 4
Source: tetex-base
Source-Version: 2.0.2-8
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_2.0.2-8.diff.gz
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2-8.diff.gz
tetex-base_2.0.2-8.dsc
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2-8.dsc
tetex-base_2.0.2-8_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2-8_all.deb
tetex-doc_2.0.2-8_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_2.0.2-8_all.deb
tetex-extra_2.0.2-8_all.deb
to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_2.0.2-8_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 245502@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.
Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Frank Küster <frank@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: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:21:25 +0200
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2-8
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <debian-tetex-maint@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>
Description:
tetex-base - Basic library files of teTeX
tetex-doc - The documentation component of the Debian teTeX packages
tetex-extra - Additional library files of teTeX
Closes: 148216 158352 181065 245502 246318
Changes:
tetex-base (2.0.2-8) unstable; urgency=low
.
* Fix links to compressed files in helpindex.html and newhelpindex.html,
thanks to Hannu Koivisto <azure@iki.fi> (closes: #158352) [frank]
* Remove empty directories in /usr/share/doc/texmf/ from tetex-base
(closes: #148216) [frank]
* Add dependency on ucf (closes: #245502)
* Even better description of options in config.ps, thanks to Matthew
Swift <swift@alum.mit.edu> (closes: #181065) [frank]
* Corrected directory for reportbug scripts (thanks to "Mario
'BitKoenig' Holbe" <Mario.Holbe@RZ.TU-Ilmenau.DE>) (closes: #246318)
[frank]
Files:
0738889250618d60fa5b7b7f319f00d6 846 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2-8.dsc
a78441ce69cec454d97b14389479a066 138899 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2-8.diff.gz
4c853c28fd48a8f66f7d6e8939ea99e8 14300530 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2-8_all.deb
d158122451e7059a867edba6889b24d3 10512134 tex optional tetex-extra_2.0.2-8_all.deb
69e495de70f70bde49592b2d394631c5 27494582 doc optional tetex-doc_2.0.2-8_all.deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAj8G6+xs9YyJS+hoRAhEUAJ4wb+TcLJrOIa02EYWyA8SsShU9IwCfct81
Y8tts/scZ6p1s9170a9kwWg=
=tLd8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: