The patch fixes this problem by changing jadetex to work properly with
.efmt files rather than the .fmt files it is now expecting.
It also makes jadetex a link to etex and pdfjadetex a link to
pdfetex. I have prepared the patch to NMU jadetex, but presumably
the jadetex maintainer will accept the patch and make it a regular
upload instead. (I've just gotten into the habit of preparing my
patches to create NMUs, since if the package does get an NMU, it
takes less effort!)
Jay Berkenbilt <[email protected]> writes:
The patch fixes this problem by changing jadetex to work properly with .efmt files rather than the .fmt files it is now expecting.
Is it really ok to switch from using tex to using etex?
Why is this necessary?
In what exactly version of tetex was this change made?
It also makes jadetex a link to etex and pdfjadetex a link to
pdfetex. I have prepared the patch to NMU jadetex, but presumably
the jadetex maintainer will accept the patch and make it a regular
upload instead. (I've just gotten into the habit of preparing my
patches to create NMUs, since if the package does get an NMU, it
takes less effort!)
Sorry I didn't see this bug report.
If someone else wants to take over jadetex maintenance, I'm happy
to wash my hands of it. Frankly, I'm quite annoyed by the way
tetex is maintained, specifically, the way they make changes in
tetex without notifying other packages maintainers that they are
about to break things. This has happened several times in the
past.
The patch fixes this problem by changing jadetex to work properly with
.efmt files rather than the .fmt files it is now expecting. It also
makes jadetex a link to etex and pdfjadetex a link to pdfetex. I
have prepared the patch to NMU jadetex, but presumably the jadetex
maintainer will accept the patch and make it a regular upload
instead. (I've just gotten into the habit of preparing my patches
to create NMUs, since if the package does get an NMU, it takes less
effort!)
After rebuilding the package with this patch applied, I can now
install jadetex in a pbuilder environment and then run both jadetex
and pdfjadetex on a suitable file and see the output as expected.
--- debian/fmtutil.cnf.qdist 2004-08-07 22:45:05.000000000 -0400
+++ debian/fmtutil.cnf 2004-08-07 22:46:36.000000000 -0400
@@ -2,6 +2,6 @@
# invoke with 'fmtutil --cnffile <file>'
#
# format engine pattern-file arguments
-jadetex tex language.dat &latex jadetex.ini -pdfjadetex pdftex language.dat &pdflatex pdfjadetex.ini
+jadetex etex language.dat &latex jadetex.ini +pdfjadetex pdfetex language.dat &pdflatex pdfjadetex.ini
Well, I've seen already LaTeX code in the net, which runs through
etex, but not Knuth tex.
The next TeX Live and the next teTeX will not have the Knuth
compiler at all.
Sorry for that! We didn't notice, that jadetex explicitly checks for
the existence of special formats in post* ....
Hilmar Preusse <[email protected]> writes:
The next TeX Live and the next teTeX will not have the Knuth
compiler at all.
Well, rather than calling it 'etex', at that point, it would just be
the 'tex' command, right?
Sorry for that! We didn't notice, that jadetex explicitly checks
for the existence of special formats in post* ....
Special formats? I simply check that the memory dumps are generated,
and that memory dumps for any required packages are present.
In a nutshell:
kpsewhich latex.fmt
kpsewhich pdftex.fmt
kpsewhich pdflatex.fmt
Is there anything wrong or buggy in doing this?
Unless the tetex maintainers tell me I really ought to change from
tex to etex at this point in the freeze, I'd rather leave it as it
is.
I have no clue, why you do that at all. AFAICS jadetex depends on
tetex-bin. It won't configure until tetex-bin has the state ii. If
this is the case you have a working teTeX system^1 and all formats to
run TeX, LaTeX etc. do exist. Independent of if they are called
latex.fmt or latex.efmt.
Hilmar Preusse <[email protected]> writes:
I have no clue, why you do that at all. AFAICS jadetex depends on tetex-bin. It won't configure until tetex-bin has the state ii. If
this is the case you have a working teTeX system^1 and all formats to
run TeX, LaTeX etc. do exist. Independent of if they are called
latex.fmt or latex.efmt.
Erm, I wish that were true.
The fact is, I've seen plenty of cases where tetex-bin is fully
installed but the format files are not there. Suppose the user
breaks configuration and then run fmtutil --all?
See the jadetex changelog and the archived bugs if you don't
believe me.
That aside, there's been a lot of discussion, but I'm not sure
there's a resolution. Here's my understanding of the points:
* The decision to switch LaTeX to use etex instead of tex was made
deliberately.
* Not everyone agrees about whether this fix was appropriate so close
to the release.
It also seems clear to me that there is a discussion going on between
tetex and jadetex maintainers that should hopefully converge on some
solution that means jadetex and tetex installs and upgrades all
succeed.
Erm, I wish that were true. The fact is, I've seen plenty of cases
where tetex-bin is fully installed but the format files are not there.
Suppose the user breaks configuration and then run fmtutil --all? See
the jadetex changelog and the archived bugs if you don't believe me.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 716 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 56:14:26 |
| Calls: | 12,117 |
| Files: | 15,010 |
| Messages: | 6,518,661 |