Bug#338689: tex-common tells me /etc/texmf/updmap.d/00updmap.cfg changed
Junichi Uekawa <dancer@netfort.gr.jp> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> > Package: tex-common
>> > Version: 0.10
>> >
>> > tex-common seems to ask for verification on
>> > file change.
>> > I suppose it's meant to be fixed in 0.10, but it's apparently not.
>>
>> It seems as if you (or some script?) has changed the setting for
>> dvipsDownloadBase14; this setting is also false in sarge and etch, but
>> it doesn't show up in the diff.
>
> This has happened on more than one machine, and I don't remember
> changing that configuration.
This is strange; unless I find out that the woody and sarge files differ
only in that one line, I must suspect a script from some other package.
>> > Inst tetex-extra [2.0.2c-9] (3.0-10 Debian AMD64 archive:unstable) []
>> > Inst libkpathsea4 (3.0-10.1 Debian AMD64 archive:unstable) []
>> > Remv tetex-base [2.0.2c-9] [dvipsk-ja ptex-base dvipdfmx tetex-bin pgf ]
>> > Inst tetex-bin [2.0.2-31] (3.0-10.1 Debian AMD64 archive:unstable) [dvipsk-ja ptex-base dvipdfmx pgf texinfo ]
>> > Inst tetex-base [2.0.2c-9] (3.0-10 Debian AMD64 archive:unstable) [texinfo ]
>> > Inst tex-common (0.10 Debian AMD64 archive:unstable)
>>
>> I don't know where these lines are from, and how to interpret them.
>> Does that mean that you just installed tetex-base before trying the
>> upgrade? Where there conffiles of tetex-base on the system before that?
>>
>
> It means, I installed tetex-bin, which pulled in tetex-base.
> This is an output of single apt session.
>
> The versions in the square brackets are the version numbers
> before install. The versions in round brackets are the
> versions that are going to install.
And what does "Inst" mean, then: unpacking for later configuration, or
in fact "install", so that the postinst would be called at once? I
assume the first, otherwise there'd be very strange things happening on
your system.
But that's probably not relevant for this bug.
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: