Re: confused by bug
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 21:30 -0600, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 04:17:11PM +1300, Richard Hector wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I've been caught by (closed) bug #531595
> > ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=531595 )
> > It says it's closed, and fixed - and was important to fix in etch, since
> > that's where the problem is/was.
> > However, texlive-latex-base still refuses to install on this etch
> > machine.
> > Can anyone help me understand what's going on in that bug thread, and
> > how I can make it install? Do I need to add an additional repo?
> > And yes, I know upgrading to lenny is the real answer - this is one of
> > the steps towards that ...
> The bug has been fixed in 2005.dfsg.2-13, which was uploaded to
> oldstable-proposed-updates. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to have
> made it's way into oldstable, as is revealed here:
> [kumar@bluemoon ~] rmadison texlive-bin
> texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-12 | etch-m68k | source
> texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-12 | oldstable | source
> texlive-bin | 2005.dfsg.2-13 | oldstable-proposed-updates | source
> texlive-bin | 2007.dfsg.2-4+lenny2 | stable | source
> texlive-bin | 2009-5 | testing | source
> texlive-bin | 2009-5 | unstable | source
> Contrast this with the "stable" version, which has migrated from
> stable-proposed-updates to stable.
Sorted. After I realised you were talking about texlive-bin, while
texlive-latex-base is built from texlive-base, I read the reports a
little more thoroughly.
It turns out (though this was still not clear from the reports) that if
I upgraded texlive-base-bin (and texlive-pdfetex, though I suspect
that's irrelevant)(which are built from texlive-bin) from
oldstable-proposed-updates, that changed something (probably fmtutil)
which enabled the existing texlive-latex-base to install.
A bit tortuous, but I got there :-)