Bug#264043: this issue is not fixed
> This issue is not yet fixed.
>
> tetex-bin obviously needs a Conflicts with jadetex (<< 3.13-1.1).
Hmm. I don't completely understand why. Wouldn't it be more
appropriate for jadetex to Depend upon tetex-bin >= 2.0.2-17
(actually, 2.0.2-16 and possibly something earlier would certainly be
sufficient)? Granted, this was a non-compatible change in tetex, but
I think the jadetex configuration scripts could have been written in
such a way that they would have been resilient to this change. (My
patch didn't improve that aspect of the code at all -- I just replaced
the old hard-coded assumptions with new hard-coded assumptions.)
> Are there any other packages that might be affected similarly by
> the e-TeX change?
I suppose any other packages that install TeX formats, particularly
those that are built on top of LaTeX or anything else that changed
from tex to etex could care about this. I'm in a little over my
depth, so I can't say for sure whether it would really impact those or
whether other things would also be impacted. A quick and marginally
unreliable check shows that only jadetex and xmltex install .ini files
in /etc/texmf. arabtex, dvipdfmx, hlatex, thailatex, tipa, and xmltex
install .cfg files in /etc/texmf. About 25 packages (give or take)
install files in /etc/texmf.
I would have to defer analysis on this to someone else, particularly
whoever made the choice to go from tex to etex for latex and pdflatex.
Do you think this bug should still be release critical?
--
Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org>
http://www.ql.org/q/
Reply to: