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

Bug#487630: SUCCESS after removal of 00tetex.cnf (was: Re: Bug#487630: Bug 487630 exists also in version 2007.dfsg.2-3 (and version 2007.dfsg.2-4))

On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 17:42 +0100, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> On 03.11.08 Omer Zak (w1@zak.co.il) wrote:
> > omega		omega		-	omega.ini
> > lambda		omega		language.dat	lambda.ini
> > 
> Here is the omega.
> > /etc/texmf/fmt.d:
> > total 28
> > drwxr-xr-x  2 root root 4096 Nov  3 16:10 .
> > drwxr-xr-x 21 root root 4096 Nov  3 15:16 ..
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root root 3704 Sep  2  2004 00tetex.cnf
> > -rw-r--r--  1 root root 1364 Jul 28 01:53 00tex.cnf
> > 
> And here is the old 00tetex.cnf from teTeX times, which causes your
> failures. I should have seen in earlier.
> To which package belongs it?

According to dpkg -S, 00tetex.cnf belongs to no package.  The laptop has
been running Debian Testing for few years (Sarge Testing, then Etch
Testing, and now Lenny Testing), so it is probable that one of the
versions of the package, which originally owned it, was uninstalled (or
upgraded, rendering the file unneeded) but neglected to remove this

After removing 00tetex.cnf (actually, I moved it to an user's home
directory), texlive-base-bin and texlive-base and their dependencies
were successfully configured.  Subsequently, I successfully ran a task
which depends upon them, proving that they are working properly.

Thus, the real bug is that at installation time, texlive-base-bin does
not verify that there are no problematic leftover files in /etc/texmf
and its subdirectories.  I think that it is a general problem, which may
benefit from a Debian-wide solution.

Did you shave a yak today?
My own blog is at http://www.zak.co.il/tddpirate/

My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone.
They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which
I may be affiliated in any way.
WARNING TO SPAMMERS:  at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html

Reply to: