Bug#266091: marked as done (conffiles in VARTEMXF are not found)
Your message dated Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:37:05 +0200
with message-id <87oelafc66.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
and subject line Bug#265611: [tex-k] Re: tetex-extra and fmtutil
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; 13 Aug 2004 23:18:42 +0000
>From jimmy@g-tec.co.at Fri Aug 13 16:18:42 2004
Return-path: <jimmy@g-tec.co.at>
Received: from smartmx-06.inode.at [213.229.60.38]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BvlJq-0006MG-00; Fri, 13 Aug 2004 16:18:42 -0700
Received: from [83.64.198.178] (port=36285 helo=ultimate.g-tec.co.at)
by smartmx-06.inode.at with esmtp (Exim 4.30)
id 1BvlJj-0003xa-M9
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:18:35 +0200
Received: from jimmy by ultimate.g-tec.co.at with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 1BvlJT-0004OT-00; Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:18:19 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: jimmy@g-tec.co.at
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: tetex-extra: Problems with fmtutil again
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.64
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 01:18:18 +0200
Message-Id: <[🔎] E1BvlJT-0004OT-00@ultimate.g-tec.co.at>
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=-5.4 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATING,HAS_PACKAGE,
NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Package: tetex-extra
Version: 2.0.2a-3
Severity: important
Upgrading from previous version tells me:
--- snip ---
Get:1 http://localhost unstable/main tetex-extra 2.0.2a-3 [10.5MB]
Fetched 10.5MB in 58s (179kB/s)
Reading package fields... Done
Reading package status... Done
Retrieving bug reports... Done
Reading changelogs...
(Reading database ... 72268 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace tetex-extra 2.0.2a-2 (using
.../tetex-extra_2.0.2a-3_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement tetex-extra ...
mktexlsr: Updating /usr/local/lib/texmf/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN...
mktexlsr: Updating /var/cache/fonts/ls-R...
mktexlsr: Done.
Setting up tetex-extra (2.0.2a-3) ...
Running initex. This may take some time. ...
fmtutil: config file `fmtutil.cnf' not found.
fmtutil failed. Output has been stored in
/tmp/tetex-extra.postinst.XXbXoSy4
Please include this file if you report a bug.
dpkg: error processing tetex-extra (--configure):
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
tetex-extra
--- snip ---
/tmp/tetex-extra.postinst.XXbXoSy4 is not attached, since it is empty.
I already had to face this problems with the previous versions of
tetex-extra and tetex-base. It's solved in tetex-base but in tetex-extra
there is still a problem in the postinst script. I fixed it by adding
the parameter --cnffile to the call for the commands fmtutil and updmap,
but this was just a dirty hack(I'm not sure if I've done it the right way).
-- Package-specific info:
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.25
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=de_AT@euro
Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii dpkg 1.10.23 Package maintenance system for Deb
ii gsfonts 8.14+urwcyr1.0.7pre35-1 Fonts for the Ghostscript interpre
ii tetex-base 2.0.2a-3 Basic library files of teTeX
ii tetex-bin 2.0.2-17 The teTeX binary files
ii ucf 1.07 Update Configuration File: preserv
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 266091-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Aug 2004 07:38:08 +0000
>From frank@kuesterei.ch Tue Aug 17 00:38:08 2004
Return-path: <frank@kuesterei.ch>
Received: from balu1.urz.unibas.ch [131.152.1.51]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1BwyXo-0000Ki-00; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:38:08 -0700
Received: from alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch (bioz6-allgem17.Bioz.unibas.ch [131.152.17.45])
by balu1.urz.unibas.ch (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7H7c5lJ003682;
Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:38:06 +0200
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch)
by alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1BwyWp-0000c0-00; Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:37:07 +0200
To: Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
Cc: 266091-done@bugs.debian.org, tex-k@mail.tug.org
Subject: Re: Bug#265611: [tex-k] Re: tetex-extra and fmtutil
Sender: frank.kuester@unibas.ch
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20040816203159.GA7601@dbs.uni-hannover.de> (Thomas Esser's
message of "Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:31:59 +0200")
References: <20040815115800.GC1394@ultimate.g-tec.co.at>
<[🔎] 20040815214132.GA7095@preusse-16223.user.cis.dfn.de>
<[🔎] 20040815234854.GE1394@ultimate.g-tec.co.at>
<[🔎] 87657j8cgp.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
<[🔎] 87brhbyqjy.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
<[🔎] 20040816203159.GA7601@dbs.uni-hannover.de>
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 09:37:05 +0200
Message-ID: <87oelafc66.fsf@alhambra.bioz.unibas.ch>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Delivered-To: 266091-done@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=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level:
Thomas Esser <te@dbs.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
[...] clearing up some half-understandings of mine
Thanks very much - so it was just PEBCAK.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: