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

Bug#539482: marked as done (texlive-base-bin: bibtex should use the alternatives system)

Your message dated Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:31:15 +0100
with message-id <20091229143115.GA3376@PC23>
and subject line Re: Bug#539482: texlive-base-bin: bibtex should use the alternatives system
has caused the Debian Bug report #539482,
regarding texlive-base-bin: bibtex should use the alternatives system
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
539482: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=539482
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: texlive-base-bin
Version: 2007.dfsg.2-6
Severity: wishlist
There are currently at least 2 working bibtex implementations in Debian, i.e. nbibtex and TeX Live's one, and there's going to be more (see bugs #412085, #535116).
Therefore, I believe it would be a good idea for TeX Live's bibtex to start using the Debian alternatives system, so that other implementations could be made available under the /usr/bin/bibtex and /usr/share/man/man1/bibtex.1.gz names. 

--
Jakub Wilk

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 2009-5

On 11.12.09 Norbert Preining (preining@logic.at) wrote:
> I was pushed to that bug and....
> 
> On So, 02 Aug 2009, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * Vincent Danjean <vdanjean.ml@free.fr>, 2009-08-02, 01:11:
> >>> There are currently at least 2 working bibtex implementations in Debian,
> >>> i.e. nbibtex and TeX Live's one, and there's going to be more (see bugs
> >>> #412085, #535116).
> >>>
> >>> Therefore, I believe it would be a good idea for TeX Live's bibtex to
> >>> start using the Debian alternatives system, so that other
> >>> implementations could be made available under the /usr/bin/bibtex and
> >>> /usr/share/man/man1/bibtex.1.gz names.
> >>
> >> Does all the bibtex implementations have the same interface (ie the same
> >> command-line options) ?
> >> It is required if want to be able to use alternatives.
> >
> > All the implementations accept the most basic syntax, i.e.:
> >
> >     bibtex AUXFILE[.aux]
> >
> > nbibtex supports the -min-crossref=N, -help and -version, but not -terse.
> > Unfortunately, other implementations support none of these options.  
> > However, if you believe that it is essential to have all of them  
> > implemented (I don't think it's necessary), I am willing to contribute
> > patches for pybtex and (possibly) pybliographer.
> 
> On Do, 10 Dez 2009, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > Bug #560376 [pybtex] pybtex: Should install symlink bibtex -> /usr/bin/pybtex 
> > Was not blocked by any bugs.
> > Added blocking bug(s) of 560376: 539482
> 
> 
> As said, there is *one* bibtex and that is the one from Oren.
> If we install an alternative system then all the cmd line options
> from the original bibtex have to be implemented in the other
> bibtex-like implementations, *AND* (this is important) the
> generated output *has*to*be*the*same*!!!
> 
> We don't want that suddently documents' bibs start looking completely
> different although bibtex was called, only because it was some
> different bibtex.
> 
> Please keep that in mind, otherwise there will be no alternative 
> system.
> 
Meanwhile it is there -> Closing manually.

H.
-- 
sigmentation fault

--- End Message ---
Reply to: