Bug#342247: marked as done (updating tetex-extra fails)
Your message dated Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:23:43 +0100
with message-id <86pso99uy8.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
and subject line Bug#342247: updating tetex-extra fails
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; 6 Dec 2005 14:42:12 +0000
>From robert.sander@epigenomics.com Tue Dec 06 06:42:12 2005
Return-path: <robert.sander@epigenomics.com>
Received: from gk.ta.epigenomics.net ([217.188.97.210] ident=qmailr)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1Eje1E-0007XP-6U
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:42:12 -0800
Received: (qmail 31840 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2005 14:42:08 -0000
Received: from raman.epigenomics.epi (192.168.48.2)
by salam.epigenomics.epi with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Dec 2005 14:42:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 17554 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2005 14:42:07 -0000
X-Scanned-By: AMaViS-ng at epigenomics.com
Received: (ofmipd 192.168.51.249); 6 Dec 2005 14:41:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 27228 invoked by uid 515); 6 Dec 2005 14:42:05 -0000
Date: 6 Dec 2005 15:42:05 +0100
Message-ID: <[🔎] 20051206144205.GA26779@snell.epigenomics.epi>
From: "Robert Sander" <robert.sander@epigenomics.com>
To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: updating tetex-extra fails
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Reportbug-Version: 3.8
Fnord: +++ath
MSMail-Priority: High
X-Operating-System: Linux snell 2.6.11-client-p4
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
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-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Package: tetex-extra
Version: 2.0.2c-8
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Hi!
The latest update is not installable:
snell:~# apt-get install tetex-extra
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The following packages will be upgraded:
tetex-extra
1 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.
1 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 0B/10.5MB of archives.
After unpacking 16.4kB disk space will be freed.
(Reading database ... 176463 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace tetex-extra 2.0.2c-8 (using
=2E../tetex-extra_2.0.2c-8sarge1_all.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement tetex-extra ...
Setting up tetex-extra (2.0.2c-8sarge1) ...
Running updmap. This may take some time. ...
Running updmap failed.
dpkg: error processing tetex-extra (--configure):
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Errors were encountered while processing:
tetex-extra
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
snell:~# updmap
updmap: config file updmap.cfg not found.
snell:~# dpkg -S updmap.cfg
tetex-base: /usr/share/tetex-base/00updmap.cfg
tetex-base: /usr/share/tetex-base/updmap.cfg
snell:~# l /usr/share/tetex-base/updmap.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4430 Jan 30 2003 /usr/share/tetex-base/updmap.cfg
-- Package-specific info:
Please read and follow the instructions in the first lines below
the text: "-- Package-specific info:".
Thank you.
Press ENTER to continue
If you report an error when running one of the TeX-related binaries=20
(latex, pdftex, metafont,...), or if the bug is related to bad or wrong
output, please include a MINIMAL example input file that produces the
error in your report. Don't forget to also include minimal examples of
other files that are needed, e.g. bibtex databases. Often it also helps
to include the logfile. Please, never send included pictures!
If your example file isn't short or produces more than one page of
output (except when multiple pages are needed to show the problem),
you can probably minimize it further. Instructions on how to do that
can be found at
http://www.latex-einfuehrung.de/mini-en.html (english)
or=20
http://www.latex-einfuehrung.de/mini.html (german)
##################################
minimal input file
##################################
other files
######################################
List of ls-R files
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 79 Dec 6 07:40 /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 91 Dec 6 07:40 /usr/local/lib/texmf/ls-R
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Dec 6 07:39 /usr/share/texmf/ls-R -> /var/lib/t=
exmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.11-client-p4
Locale: LANG=3DC, LC_CTYPE=3DC (charmap=3DANSI_X3.4-1968) (ignored: LC_ALL =
set to C)
Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii dpkg 1.10.28 Package maintenance system for=
Deb
ii gsfonts 8.14+v8.11+urw-0.2 Fonts for the Ghostscript inte=
rpre
ii tetex-base 2.0.2c-8sarge1 Basic library files of teTeX
ii tetex-bin 2.0.2-30 The teTeX binary files
ii ucf 1.17 Update Configuration File: pre=
serv
-- no debconf information
Greetings
--=20
Robert Sander
--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDlaM9m4ntD5i43IARAoPGAKCDJn9XoilMAPBy+HIE4Q7VuwcAeACfXy7f
HPcotS6BKFT/a+m6EjaJGUk=
=Z2Eq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--3V7upXqbjpZ4EhLz--
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 342247-done) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Dec 2005 08:23:19 +0000
>From frank@kuesterei.ch Wed Dec 07 00:23:19 2005
Return-path: <frank@kuesterei.ch>
Received: from idmailgate2.unizh.ch ([130.60.127.101])
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1Ejua7-0003uW-CN
for 342247-done@bugs.debian.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 00:23:19 -0800
Received: from localhost ([130.60.169.219])
by idmailgate2.unizh.ch (8.13.1/8.13.1/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id jB78NCVb013868;
Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:23:12 +0100
Received: from localhost
([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost.localdomain ident=frank)
by localhost with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
id 1EjuaW-00063v-AU; Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:23:44 +0100
To: Robert Sander <robert.sander@epigenomics.com>
Cc: 342247-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#342247: updating tetex-extra fails
X-Attribution: fant
X-Ehrenamt: http://www.langau.de
In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20051206201244.GA31617@epigenomics.com> (Robert Sander's
message of "Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:12:44 +0100")
References: <[🔎] 20051206144205.GA26779@snell.epigenomics.epi>
<[🔎] 868xuyp5wv.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
<[🔎] 20051206165844.GA28081@snell.epigenomics.epi>
<[🔎] 86oe3unlze.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
<[🔎] 20051206180258.GA28612@snell.epigenomics.epi>
<[🔎] 86iru2njji.fsf@alhambra.kuesterei.ch>
<[🔎] 20051206201244.GA31617@epigenomics.com>
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <frank@debian.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:23:43 +0100
Message-ID: <86pso99uy8.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
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-Level:
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
Robert Sander <robert.sander@epigenomics.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:54:09PM +0100, Frank K?ster wrote:
>>=20
>> You don't by chance have a typescript of the upgrade from woody's
>> version of tetex (1.0something) to sarge's?=20
>
> The host was upgraded from woody to sarge three weeks ago, but I have
> not recorded the upgrade, sorry.
According to our analysis, the bug occurred because you kept woody's
configuration files and refused the update to the sarge versions - in
other words it is not a bug, and I'm closing it.=20=20
Did you manage to clean up your system, or do you need further help?
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer
Reply to: