Re: Bug#557091: texlive-binaries: fmtutil-sys failed during upgrade from texlive 2007
Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> On Do, 26 Nov 2009, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
>> >>> > # The following added lines have been transferred from
>> >>> > # /etc/texmf/fmt.d/10texlive-base-bin.cnf
>
> Ok, it is us ... and it was present in the upgrade code rom 2005 to
> 2007, and is still present in texlive-base.postinst of 2007:
>
[...]
> Now ... who wants to step forward to write texlive-base.postinst code
> that fixes that fix for a fix that fixes a fix that aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
> svn blameing texlive-new/trunk/texlive-base/debian/texlive-base.postinst.pre
> I see many many many "frank"s in these lines (only)....
>
> Frank ... you want to come up with a nice idea ;-)))))
I know it was me. But I don't have much time to think about that; just
some general remarks (and I'll look at your other e-mail with proposed
code later).
The reason for the take-over was a try to be really policy-compliant,
maybe over-compliant (or one could say, follow the spirit instead of
staying with following the wording...). The settings for tex, pdftex
and mf were tranferred from texlive-base-bin to texlive-base,
consequently the configuration file name changed, and the settings would
either be present twice, or changes ignored (I'm not sure which).
In the "present twice" case, we would have needed to rename the old file
to an unused name, ending up again in "changes ignored".
Therefore I wanted to transfer the changed lines to the new file. What
I did was:
- for each of the three formats, check whether the old file exists and
whether the line starting with the format name is identical to the one
previously shipped. If not, edit the line in the new file (with sed
-i) to be like in the maintainer-changed version
- after that, check whether any non-comment, non-blank lines are in the
old conffile in addition to the ones starting with tex, pdftex and
mf. Add those to the new file.
The last thing is obviously buggy. Somehow the old conffile also
routinely contains entries for etex and pdfetex, and my code re-adds
them.
I didn't check old package versions, but I assume that the version I
tested upgrades from didn't have those lines, but others did.
I conclude from that that it is safe to remove any lines that come
after that "transferred from..." text and related to etex and pdfetex.
I'm not sure whether we should remove more than that.
> I tend to rename the old unconditionally and install the new one
> as it should be, and warn the user that if they made changes they
> have to redo it.
That's the easy solution; at least if with "warn" you mean to just
display a warning on screen. It doesn't seem to fit the usual Debian
requirements, we would need a debconf note. Even then it's conceptually
easy.
Just removing any etex and pdfetex lines after the "transferred from"
comment is more "conservative". It should fix the bugs that have been
reported so far - but we must be prepared to get new info and maybe have
to add more lines that we delete.
Regards, Frank
--
Dr. Frank Küster
Debian Developer (TeXLive)
VCD Aschaffenburg-Miltenberg, ADFC Miltenberg
B90/Grüne KV Miltenberg
Reply to: