On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:34:37AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> wrote: > > > branden@necrotic:~$ dpkg -l tetex-extra > > Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold > > | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed > > |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) > > ||/ Name Version Description > > +++-=============================================-=============================================-========================================================================================================== > > ii tetex-extra 1.0.2+20011202-2 extra teTeX library files > > Uups? In a mail from Tue, 20 Apr 2004 15:33:12 -0500 you wrote to the > same bug: > > > What is the version of tetex-extra? > > necrotic:~# dpkg -l tetex-extra > Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold > | Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed > |/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad) > ||/ Name Version Description > +++-============================================-============================================-======================================================================================================== > pn tetex-extra <none> (no description available) > > Was tetex-extra-1.0.2 in fact installed when the bug occurred first? No. > If not, how come that it is now installed? Because I installed it to see what would happen. > Note that we said these files "should not be there" because > > - they are part of tetex-extra, which you said weren't installed > > - they were at the location where they are on your system only in > tetex-1.0, and since you reported this against 2.0.2-12 we assumed you > were using unstable. > > If yes, we need to check whether the (quite unlikely) coexistence of > tetex-bin_2.0.2 and tetex-base_2.0.2 with tetex-extra_1.0.2 causes the > problem, and thus we need a conflicts. > > This is all very confusing. > > >> As for the other problems - could you send us an ls -l of that directory > >> that should be a symlink, /usr/share/texmf/web2c/? > > > > branden@necrotic:~$ ls -l /usr/share/texmf/web2c/ > > total 10840 > > I didn't check this in detail, but it looks just like a "copy" of the > directory were the link should point to. This includes some files that > are _not_ generated, but shipped in the deb, namely the *.pool and *.tcx > files - something/one must have copied them from > /var/lib/texmf/web2c. Also it seems that "dpkg-reconfigure tetex-bin" > was executed after the link was removed and the empty directory > generated, and answered with a non-default answer (at least fmtutil.cnf > as a symlink is not the default now, I'm not sure about the past). > > Did you notice any tetex mess previously and tried to repair it > manually? It looks like this. No, I did not. Even *with* tetex-extra installed, dpkg doesn't think any installed package owns any files in /usr/share/texmf/web2c. -- G. Branden Robinson | Human beings rarely imagine a god Debian GNU/Linux | that behaves any better than a branden@debian.org | spoiled child. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature