Bug#273244: (no subject)

[Matt Swift <swift@alum.mit.edu>]

Sorry, I introduced confusion into my bug report by choosing a faulty
method to support and demonstrate my claim of a problem with
update-texmf:  the program was in fact failing for me as I claimed in the
subject line, but the "proof" of it that I gave in my report was
flawed.  Here is the fuller story.

After I upgraded tetex-bin, I noticed that latex was failing to find
its format file.  I investigated, and I determined that
/etc/texmf/texmf.cnf was out of date with respect to the files in
/etc/texmf/texmf.d.  I manually ran update-texmf and texhash several
times, but this did not update /etc/texmf.cnf, and latex still failed
to find its format file.  While writing the bug report, I used "touch"
without realizing that in order to demonstrate the problem I was
experiencing, I needed to use something like

  echo "% extra comment line" >> /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf              

to simulate the substantive changes that I made to certain files in
/etc/texmf/texmf.d.


In any case, I have just tried to reproduce the problem and
update-texmf now seems to work as intended.  Earlier today I updated
fifty or more Debian packages, however, including at least one
tetex-related package, so I don't think I can recreate the problem
now.  I would not be surprised if the problem involved ucf, which has
been at the root of several headaches with updates of the mailscanner
package recently.

I wanted to clarify the reason for my initial report, which was
obscured by my poor attempt to substantiate it.  But since I can no
longer reproduce the problem, then I suppose you ought to leave this
report as a wishlist regarding the output of the -v option to
update-texmf.  Perhaps if the wording was changed and the user is told
the filename of the temporary file which is compared with the existing
/etc/texmf/texmf.cnf, then any future problems with the interaction of
udpate-texmf and ucf will be more easily detected and diagnosed.  (If
the temp file is deleted automatically, then perhaps the -d or a new
-d(ebug) option should inhibit deletion.)