Bug#334658: lm.map not found while configuring tetex-bin 3
- To: Jean Charles Delépine <delepine@nnx.com>
- Cc: 334658@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Bug#334658: lm.map not found while configuring tetex-bin 3
- From: Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:23:22 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 87u0fdbn6t.fsf_-_@florent.maison>
- Reply-to: Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>, 334658@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <20051019125715.GB29773@thinkpad> (Ralf Stubner's message of "Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:57:15 +0200")
- References: <20051019051229.88D9E1B632@orcal.delepine.info> <20051019091959.GA10538@thinkpad> <87ll0phkyn.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch> <87k6g9d94h.fsf@florent.maison> <20051019120135.GD25405@u-picardie.fr> <20051019125715.GB29773@thinkpad>
reassign 334658 lmodern
retitle 334658 lm.map not found while configuring tetex-bin 3
thanks
Hi,
Ralf Stubner <ralf.stubner@physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:
> I think the problem is that lmodern creates "10lmodern.cfg" in preinst.
I agree; thanks for the analysis.
The problem should disappear in about 5 hours when lmodern 0.92-9 is
dinstalled (0.92-9 uses the new updmap scheme and therefore doesn't need
the preinst trick to install 10lmodern.cfg).
Everything gets in order as soon as that version is configured (since
this causes lm.map to be installed).
[ 0.92-7 cannot be configured because tetex-bin cannot itself be
configured since the 10lmodern.cfg installed in preinst declares
lm.map, which is absent as long as lmodern isn't configured... ]
For people who have the problem, I suggest:
# cd /tmp
# wget http://incoming.debian.org/lmodern_0.92-9_all.deb
# dpkg -i lmodern_0.92-9_all.deb
# rm -f /etc/texmf/dvips/lm.map.dpkg-new
# dpkg --configure -a
This should fix everything I am aware of, except maybe the possible mess
caused if you followed the 'updmap-sys --syncwithtrees' advice. I still
have to check exactly what this does.
> However, the behviour of 'updmap-sys --syncwithtrees' is not correct.
> Should I make a separate bug for this?
Yes, I think it is an annoyance for us.
Thanks,
--
Florent
Reply to: