Bug#301944: marked as done (ltpatch.ltx of tetex-extra 2.0.2 conflicts with LaTeX of teTeX 3.0)
Your message dated Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:04:53 +0200
with message-id <871x9y35ve.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
and subject line Bug#301944: ltpatch.ltx of tetex-extra 2.0.2 conflicts with LaTeX of teTeX 3.0
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Mar 2005 08:38:58 +0000
>From hille42@web.de Tue Mar 29 00:38:58 2005
Return-path: <hille42@web.de>
Received: from smtp06.web.de [217.72.192.224]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DGCFW-0001Vx-00; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:38:58 -0800
Received: from [212.14.71.206] (helo=preusse.amasol.de)
by smtp06.web.de with asmtp (WEB.DE 4.104 #268)
id 1DGCEy-0001nz-00; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:38:24 +0200
Received: by preusse.amasol.de (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:38:26 +0200
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:38:25 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Cc: Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
Subject: ltpatch.ltx of tetex-extra 2.0.2 conflicts with LaTeX of teTeX 3.0
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20050329083825.GB2408@preusse>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Operating-System: CYGWIN_NT-5.0 1.5.13(0.122/4/2) i686
X-www.distributed.net: OGR-P2: 72 packets (1141.95 stats units) [2.11 Mnodes/s]
X-Face: .n=jHnz:2pu0c0)ef]4O#1FE{Vak?h89!g7_#2+PzSRoIU[pJFNnz>gLhn}UMwv}4/j{X.. 2E+>U>P!`PYk
X-Confirmation-Request: yes
X-Confirm-Reading-To: "Hilmar Preusse" <hille42@web.de>
Sender: hille42@web.de
X-Sender: hille42@web.de
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ENDS_IN_NUMS,
HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: tetex-base
Version: 3.0-3
Severity: normal
Tags: experimental
Hi,
As found out in the last postings to #269584 we have two times
ltpatch.ltx in teTeX 2.0.2. One is sitting in tetex-base[1] and the
other one in tetex-extra[2]. As both fit to the LaTeX version
delivered with teTeX 2.0, that doesn't hurt. As soon as tetex-base
from teTeX 3.0 will be installed (and tetex-extra is not updated) the
fmtutil process will now work any more and will complain that the
ltpatch.ltx in tetex-extra does not fit to the installed LaTeX
version.
The second one is something specific to lambda so I guess we can't
simply remove it, but instead make sure tetex-extra is updated at the
time tetex-base starts to configure.
Regards,
Hilmar, hoping the analysis is correct so far.
[1] usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/ltpatch.ltx
[2] usr/share/texmf/omega/lambda/omegabook/ltpatch.ltx
--
sigmentation fault
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 301944-done) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Mar 2005 14:05:33 +0000
>From frank@kuesterei.ch Tue Mar 29 06:05:32 2005
Return-path: <frank@kuesterei.ch>
Received: from idmailgate2.unizh.ch [130.60.68.106]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DGHKz-0004Oj-00; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:04:57 -0800
Received: from alhambra.kuesterei.ch ([130.60.169.112])
by idmailgate2.unizh.ch (8.12.10/8.12.10/Debian-2) with ESMTP id j2TE4sTB000336;
Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:04:54 +0200
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=alhambra.kuesterei.ch)
by alhambra.kuesterei.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1DGHKw-0000K9-Ge; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:04:54 +0200
To: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>
Cc: 301944-done@bugs.debian.org, Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#301944: ltpatch.ltx of tetex-extra 2.0.2 conflicts with
LaTeX of teTeX 3.0
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20050329083825.GB2408@preusse> (Hilmar Preusse's message of
"Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:38:25 +0200")
References: <[🔎] 20050329083825.GB2408@preusse>
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:04:53 +0200
Message-ID: <871x9y35ve.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
Delivered-To: 301944-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de> wrote:
> The second one is something specific to lambda so I guess we can't
> simply remove it, but instead make sure tetex-extra is updated at the
> time tetex-base starts to configure.
This is already done in current tetex in experimental: tetex-base
conflicts with tetex-bin versions < 2.99.7, and tetex-bin 3.0-2
conflicts with tetex-extra << 2.96. The user had an old version of
tetex-base installed.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer
Reply to: