[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#425085: texlive-doc-en: catalogue entries with dangling links



Package: texlive-doc-en
Version: 2007-3
Severity: minor

Hi,

some of the catalogue entries include links to additional documentions
and the like, but these files do not exist. Often local files are
referenced while the site says this package is not part of TeX Live, e.g.
MikTeX.

I've run webcheck on the catalogue to see which files are affected.

% wecheck -o /tmp /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc-en/english/catalogue/index.html

webcheck found more than 6000 bad links. I didn't append the output file,
because it's 7MB. If I can send it to the BTS or anywhere else tell me.

Attention: There's a bug in webcheck; #425004. You must modify hier.html
and entries/blackletter1.html.

sed -i -e '/\/\//s/\.\.\/\.\.\/\//..\/..\//;' hier.html
sed -i -e '/\/\//s/\(blacklettert1\/\)\//\1/;' entries/blackletter1.html

Bye, Jörg.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: unstable/experimental
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (900, 'unstable'), (700, 'experimental')
Architecture: powerpc (ppc)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.22-rc1
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages texlive-doc-en depends on:
ii  texlive-common                2007-6     TeX Live: Base component
ii  texlive-doc-base              2007-3     TeX Live: Base documentation

texlive-doc-en recommends no packages.

Versions of packages tex-common depends on:
ii  debconf                       1.5.13     Debian configuration management sy
ii  ucf                           3.001      Update Configuration File: preserv

Versions of packages texlive-doc-en is related to:
pn  tetex-base                    <none>     (no description available)
pn  tetex-bin                     <none>     (no description available)
pn  tetex-extra                   <none>     (no description available)

-- debconf information excluded

Attachment: pgp7fYGWKkfmS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: