Re: Bug#298884: tetex-bin fails to install

[weg@indiscrete.org (Eythan Weg)]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:36:37 +0100,
 Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:

  weg@indiscrete.org (Eythan Weg) schrieb:
    
    > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 18:21:06 +0100,
    >  Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
    >
    >     
    >   So now you are using which versions?  I just found that tetex-bin_3.0-1
    >   hasn't made it into the archive, although I got the ACCEPTED mail. 
    >
    > 3.0-1
    
  That's quite impossible as far as tetex-bin is concerned, because
  tetex-bin_3.0-1 got lost, it's only on my local system ;-) Or do you
  really have a mirror that has that file?


I don't have a mirror but this file,  tetex-bin 3.0-1, was
available as per your announcement, some time ago.
Its md5 checksum is:
5f9c43f9ebbbd6cdc67107fc05799d9d  tetex-bin_3.0-1_i386.deb

Now I have extracted the file
./usr/share/tetex-bin/05TeXMF.cnf from
tetex-bin_3.0-1_i386.deb, and it is identical to
what I think I have posted.  (At least as it is on
my disk right now, of course renamed.)  Line 70
contains the definition I mentioned.  I have
changed only one line: TEXMFLOCAL =
/usr/local/share/texmf instead of the original
TEXMFLOCAL = /usr/share/texmf-local

Unless, this file is supposed to be precessed
during installation...  I have no explanation.

I also found that the pk fonts could not be found
because they could not be installed in 
VARTEXFONTS = /var/spool/texmf
as defined in texmf.cnf.  That is because the
directory was not defined.  Is this debian
'responsibility' to create this directory?  Regardless,
what is the recommended  permission policy?

    >     
    >     > This time I got back to the
    >     > same position: TEXMFLOCAL defined incorrectly. 
    >     
    >   How was it defined?  Did it ask you a question about that file?  Or do
    >   you use the noninteractive frontend?
    >
    > TEXMFLOCAL = /usr/share/texmf-local
    >
  [...]
    > The attached is the original 05TeXMF.cnf.  There
    > are no related files (.cnf.dpkg-*).
    
  Oh, yes, that's an old one from 2.99.12.  I just sent a mail to the
  ftpmasters, asking where the 3.0-1 files got lost.
    
  I don't think that it makes sense to debug the tex error in this
  situation. 

I am puzzled too. But here is what's installed.

 Desired=Unknown/Install/Remove/Purge/Hold
| Status=Not/Installed/Config-files/Unpacked/Failed-config/Half-installed
|/ Err?=(none)/Hold/Reinst-required/X=both-problems (Status,Err: uppercase=bad)
||/ Name           Version        Description
+++-==============-==============-============================================
ii  tetex-base     3.0-1          Basic library files of teTeX
ii  tetex-bin      3.0-1          The teTeX binary files
un  tetex-dev      <none>         (no description available)
ii  tetex-doc      3.0-1          The documentation component of the Debian te
un  tetex-eurosym  <none>         (no description available)
ii  tetex-extra    3.0-1          Additional library files of teTeX
un  tetex-french   <none>         (no description available)
pn  tetex-lib      <none>         (no description available)
un  tetex-nonfree  <none>         (no description available)

    

    > I did not have any 2.0.2 files.
    
  Hm.  Can you purge tetex-base again, and check whether there are any
  files left in /etc/texmf?  There shouldn't (unless some other packages
  messes around there that does *not* depend on tetex). 

I am hesitating at the moment.  Could it wait for
Monday?

Thanks for the learning experience. Eythan