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

Re: Processed: Re: Bug#683163: xmlto fail to convert example docbook to PDF (LaTeX Error, missing \item?)

Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at> wrote:
> On Di, 31 Jul 2012, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > > reassign 683163 xmltex
> > Bug #683163 [xmlto] xmlto fail to convert example docbook to PDF (LaTeX
> Error, missing \item?)
> > Bug reassigned from package 'xmlto' to 'xmltex'.
> Aehm, could you *elaborate* *where* the bug in xmltex is?

It is in passivetex. I'm not familar with LaTeX source files, so I
can't help to dive deeper. Usually it should work out-of-the-box.
However, that is not the case. So docbook-xsl authors added
workarounds. But these have become so many, that they recently decided
to completely drop them. And passivetex AFAIK hasn't seen any
upstream activity for years. 

> You stated that xmltex is not maintained, which is not completely right.

Passivetex has been removed from Debian in the past, because of the issues
I described, and then re-added by moving it into the xmltex package. So
please do an "s/xmltex/passivetex/g" in my wording.

> You stated that *support for xmltex was dropped*.
> So how it comes that this is a bug in xmltex?

I've seen and examined several bugs of this kind, all related to

> It is dropped support for xmltex in xmlto/whatever, but there is
> nothing *we* can fix here.

Then please close this report. The bug is somewhere in passivetex
and IMHO the report has been correctly reassigned to xmltex.

> So please tag it with "wontfix", close it, but reassigning it to
> xmltex without reason sounds a bit strange ....

Hm, well, ... I could do that. Or passivetex can be removed finally
from Debian.

Regards, Daniel

Reply to: