Re: Bug#253098: fix to jadetex based on tetex changes

[Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>]

On 11.08.04 Adam Di Carlo (aph@debian.org) wrote:
> Jay Berkenbilt <ejb@ql.org> writes:

Hi,

> > The patch fixes this problem by changing jadetex to work properly with
> > .efmt files rather than the .fmt files it is now expecting.
> 
> Is it really ok to switch from using tex to using etex?
> 
Not really necessary, but strongly recommended:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.latex.latex3/330

> Why is this necessary?
> 
Well, I've seen already LaTeX code in the net, which runs through
etex, but not Knuth tex. The next TeX Live and the next teTeX will
not have the Knuth compiler at all.

> In what exactly version of tetex was this change made?
> 
-16 -> -17

tetex-bin (2.0.2-17) unstable; urgency=high

  * We now use e-TeX (and pdfe-TeX) as our basic engines for
    (pdf)LaTeX.  See REAMDE.Debian for details. Many thanks to Hilmar
    for this.  [frank]

 -- Frank KÃŒster <frank@debian.org>  Mon,  2 Aug 2004 17:34:23 +0200

> > It also makes jadetex a link to etex and pdfjadetex a link to
> > pdfetex.  I have prepared the patch to NMU jadetex, but presumably
> > the jadetex maintainer will accept the patch and make it a regular
> > upload instead.  (I've just gotten into the habit of preparing my
> > patches to create NMUs, since if the package does get an NMU, it
> > takes less effort!)
> 
> Sorry I didn't see this bug report.
> 
> If someone else wants to take over jadetex maintenance, I'm happy
> to wash my hands of it.  Frankly, I'm quite annoyed by the way
> tetex is maintained, specifically, the way they make changes in
> tetex without notifying other packages maintainers that they are
> about to break things.  This has happened several times in the
> past.
> 
Sorry for that! We didn't notice, that jadetex explicitly checks for
the existence of special formats in post* ....

H. 
-- 
Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked something.
  http://hilmarpreusse.forum-rheinland.de/