Bug#334613: tetex-bin: same problem when upgrade to 3.0.10
Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> On 07.11.05 Hilmar Preusse (hille42@web.de) wrote:
>
>>On 05.11.05 Eddie (etgkam@netvigator.com) wrote:
>>
>>>Hilmar Preusse wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 03.11.05 Eddie (etgkam@netvigator.com) wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>>>>>I forgot to mention that the file tetex.postinst.XXgqP8eU was
>>>>>reproduced by another setup as the orginal file
>>>>>tetex.postinst.XXKSxUFW was deleted accicidentally.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think the contents of the two files are the same.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Hmm, I guess that was an upgrade from an older version.
>>>>What makes me wondering is that your postin of tetex-bin creates two
>>>>LaTeX formats:
>>>>
>>>>fmtutil-sys: running `tex -ini -jobname=latex -progname=latex latex.ini' ...
>>>>fmtutil-sys: running `etex -ini -jobname=latex -progname=latex *latex.ini' ...
>>>>fmtutil-sys: running `pdftex -ini -jobname=pdftex -progname=pdftex pdftex.ini' ...
>>>>fmtutil-sys: running `pdftex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex pdflatex.ini' ...
>>>>fmtutil-sys: running `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex *pdflatex.ini' ...
>>>>fmtutil-sys: running `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdfelatex -progname=pdfelatex *pdfelatex.ini' ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>The contents of /etc/texmf/fmt.d/ are:
>>>
>>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1364 2005-10-05 22:51 00tex.cnf
>>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3704 2004-08-13 20:12 01tetex.cnf
>>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3091 2005-10-19 11:31 01tetex.cnf.dpkg-dist
>>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 271 2005-03-09 21:05 40jadetex.cnf
>>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 565 2005-10-31 20:40 50cyrtexinfo.cnf
>>>
>>
>>Well, this is similar to #337945. You refused to write the
>>01tetex.cnf from the maintainer over your locally changed one
>>(which is BTW the default) and hence teTeX used the old entries, we
>>had in teTeX 2.0. I've no clue how to solve that problem in
>>general.
>>
>
> Nope Sorry, I was completely wrong! 01tetex.cnf was introduced in
> teTeX 3.0. That 01tetex.cnf visible here is equivalent to the old
> 00tetex.cnf from teTeX 2.0. It has the same size the 00tetex.cnf
> should have and a very old timestamp.
> In preinst we move the old 00tetex.cnf to 01tetex.cnf. At any time
> dpkg comes along and finds out, that 01tetex.cnf has been changed (as
> it differs from that one in the package). If the user now refuses to
> replace the local version by that one from the maint (which is the
> default) fmtutil now starts creating formats with the old
> configuration. ---> *bamm*
> If you never touched 00tetex.cnf simply overwriting 01tetex.cnf by
> 01tetex.cnf.dpkg-dist should fix the problem.
>
> That renaming is probably a bad idea. I'll open another bug for that.
>
> H.
Dear Hilmar
I have followed your instructions in your email dated 7 Nov.
The post-installation is sucessful.
Regards
Eddie
Reply to: