Bug#264043: trying to get to the core of the jadetex vs etex issue
On 14.08.04 Jay Berkenbilt (ejb@ql.org) wrote:
Hi,
> > If you don't want to use e-TeX do it that way. I've read only
> > some articles in Usenet, that Knuth TeX is depreciated since
> > beginning of 2003. Hence we decided to switch to e-TeX, cause I'm
> > afraid, that next Debian won't come out before 2006...
>
> With the exception of the missing dependency information, was my
> patch correct with respect to switching jadetex to use eTeX?
>
AFAICS yes. Unfortunately I can't check it, as I don't have jadetex
in my unstable chroot. However: the switch to e-TeX was not part of
the grave fix so this decision should be left to the maintainer...
> Of course, if something like my patch were to be reapplied, it
> would be essential to make it require tetex-bin >= 2.0.2-17 (which
> is what I forgot to do).
>
... or conflict tetex-bin < 2.0.2-17
> All my patch did was to change tex to etex in fmtutil.cnf, change
> looking for .fmt to looking for .efmt in the postinst script, and
> changing the symbolic links to make jadetex point to etex rather than
> tex and pdfjadetex point to pdfetex rather than pdftex.
>
Yes, I've seen that and it seemed OK to me. But as we have to create
latex.fmt anyway again due to another bug we don't need to change
jadetex aside from that Conflict. The only reason to fail was that
missing (pdf)latex.fmt.
H.
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: