XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

tags 264043 - fixed
thanks

This issue is not yet fixed.

tetex-bin obviously needs a Conflicts with jadetex (<< 3.13-1.1).

Are there any other packages that might be affected similarly by the
e-TeX change?

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

This issue is not yet fixed.

tetex-bin obviously needs a Conflicts with jadetex (<< 3.13-1.1).

Hmm. I don't completely understand why. Wouldn't it be more
appropriate for jadetex to Depend upon tetex-bin >= 2.0.2-17
(actually, 2.0.2-16 and possibly something earlier would certainly be sufficient)? Granted, this was a non-compatible change in tetex, but
I think the jadetex configuration scripts could have been written in
such a way that they would have been resilient to this change. (My
patch didn't improve that aspect of the code at all -- I just replaced
the old hard-coded assumptions with new hard-coded assumptions.)

Are there any other packages that might be affected similarly by
the e-TeX change?

I suppose any other packages that install TeX formats, particularly
those that are built on top of LaTeX or anything else that changed
from tex to etex could care about this. I'm in a little over my
depth, so I can't say for sure whether it would really impact those or
whether other things would also be impacted. A quick and marginally
unreliable check shows that only jadetex and xmltex install .ini files
in /etc/texmf. arabtex, dvipdfmx, hlatex, thailatex, tipa, and xmltex
install .cfg files in /etc/texmf. About 25 packages (give or take)
install files in /etc/texmf.

I would have to defer analysis on this to someone else, particularly
whoever made the choice to go from tex to etex for latex and pdflatex.

Do you think this bug should still be release critical?

--
Jay Berkenbilt <[email protected]>
http://www.ql.org/q/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

On Tue, Aug 10, 2004 at 07:14:24PM -0400, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:

This issue is not yet fixed.

tetex-bin obviously needs a Conflicts with jadetex (<< 3.13-1.1).

Hmm. I don't completely understand why. Wouldn't it be more
appropriate for jadetex to Depend upon tetex-bin >= 2.0.2-17
(actually, 2.0.2-16 and possibly something earlier would certainly be sufficient)? Granted, this was a non-compatible change in tetex, but

Obviously.

That's #264926 I sent before removing the "fixed" tag from this bug.

I think the jadetex configuration scripts could have been written in
such a way that they would have been resilient to this change. (My
patch didn't improve that aspect of the code at all -- I just replaced
the old hard-coded assumptions with new hard-coded assumptions.)

If the scripts don't work with both versions of tetex-bin, the
dependencies in both packages have to ensure that under any
circumstances there are compatible versions of both packages installed.

Are there any other packages that might be affected similarly by
the e-TeX change?

I suppose any other packages that install TeX formats, particularly
those that are built on top of LaTeX or anything else that changed
from tex to etex could care about this. I'm in a little over my
depth, so I can't say for sure whether it would really impact those or whether other things would also be impacted. A quick and marginally unreliable check shows that only jadetex and xmltex install .ini files
in /etc/texmf. arabtex, dvipdfmx, hlatex, thailatex, tipa, and xmltex install .cfg files in /etc/texmf. About 25 packages (give or take)
install files in /etc/texmf.

I would have to defer analysis on this to someone else, particularly
whoever made the choice to go from tex to etex for latex and pdflatex.

Do you think this bug should still be release critical?

I assume you are joking?

Imagine tetex-bin enters testing without the updated jadetex entering
testing at the same time...

Jay Berkenbilt <[email protected]>

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

On 11.08.04 Adrian Bunk ([email protected]) wrote:

Hi,

Are there any other packages that might be affected similarly by
the e-TeX change?

May be possible: If they rely on the existence of some special formats
in /var/lib they will fail.
However: we're on the way to make rebuilds our packages and to create
all 4 format files: latex.fmt, latex.efmt, pdflatex.fmt,
pdflatex.efmt^1. That will make jadetex install again, without
changing the checkfmt commands. However you should switch to eTeX
too. See parts of the patch by Jay.

H.

^1 We've got #263296, and the easiest solution is to do exactly that.
--
sigmentation fault


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

On 11.08.04 Jay Berkenbilt ([email protected]) wrote:

Hi,

Hmm. I don't completely understand why. Wouldn't it be more
appropriate for jadetex to Depend upon tetex-bin >= 2.0.2-17
(actually, 2.0.2-16 and possibly something earlier would certainly be sufficient)?

The incompatible change was done between -16 and -17. Probably we'll
revert the part of the change, which raised the incompatibility.

H.
--
sigmentation fault


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:30:46AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:

On 11.08.04 Adrian Bunk ([email protected]) wrote:

Hi,

Hi Hilmar,

Are there any other packages that might be affected similarly by
the e-TeX change?

May be possible: If they rely on the existence of some special formats
in /var/lib they will fail.
However: we're on the way to make rebuilds our packages and to create
all 4 format files: latex.fmt, latex.efmt, pdflatex.fmt,
pdflatex.efmt^1. That will make jadetex install again, without
changing the checkfmt commands. However you should switch to eTeX
too. See parts of the patch by Jay.

I'm not the jadetex maintainer.

But this sounds good, and it would also fix #253098 in jadetex
(jadetex could then either switch to E-TeX and depend on
tetex-bin (>= 2.0.2-17) or stay unchanged and conflict with
tetex-bin (= 2.0.2-17) ).

H.
...

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

On 11.08.04 Adrian Bunk ([email protected]) wrote:

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 10:30:46AM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:

Hi *,

However: we're on the way to make rebuilds our packages and to
create all 4 format files: latex.fmt, latex.efmt, pdflatex.fmt, pdflatex.efmt^1. That will make jadetex install again, without
changing the checkfmt commands. However you should switch to eTeX
too. See parts of the patch by Jay.

I'm not the jadetex maintainer.

But this sounds good, and it would also fix #253098 in jadetex

I think #253098 is a mixture of different bugs. First they speak
about wrong usage of tail and mktemp not regarding $TMPDIR and later
about the incompatible change in tetex.

(jadetex could then either switch to E-TeX and depend on tetex-bin

= 2.0.2-17) or stay unchanged and conflict with tetex-bin (=

2.0.2-17) ).

No, if we create again latex.fmt and pdflatex.fmt that checkfmt
commands from jadetex 3.13-1 will not fail, so we don't have to set
these restrictions.

H.
--
sigmentation fault


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

From: [email protected]

On 11.08.04 Hilmar Preusse ([email protected]) wrote:

On 11.08.04 Adrian Bunk ([email protected]) wrote:

Hi *,

(jadetex could then either switch to E-TeX and depend on tetex-bin

= 2.0.2-17) or stay unchanged and conflict with tetex-bin (=

2.0.2-17) ).

No, if we create again latex.fmt and pdflatex.fmt that checkfmt
commands from jadetex 3.13-1 will not fail, so we don't have to set
these restrictions.

Or restrict to Conflicts: tetex-bin (= 2.0.2-17). But before you do
anything wait for the next upload of tetex-bin.

H.
--
sigmentation fault


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

Hilmar Preusse <[email protected]> writes:

I think #253098 is a mixture of different bugs. First they speak
about wrong usage of tail and mktemp not regarding $TMPDIR and later
about the incompatible change in tetex.

Yes. That is *all* #253098 should be about. I'm downgrading the bug
to normal severity.

That means that if tetex-bin 2.0.2-17 is breaking jadetex install, I
don't have any bugs filed on my package to that effect. I haven't yet
been able to reproduce the error.

(jadetex could then either switch to E-TeX and depend on tetex-bin

= 2.0.2-17) or stay unchanged and conflict with tetex-bin (=

2.0.2-17) ).

No, if we create again latex.fmt and pdflatex.fmt that checkfmt
commands from jadetex 3.13-1 will not fail, so we don't have to set
these restrictions.

Well, that would be great, and I can create the conflicts.


Lets step back a second. The only reason I do 'checkfmt latex.fmt'
(etc) is that I wanted it to be obvious if fmtutil is breaking because
of problems that tetex-bin might be having in producing memory dumps
which are prerequisites for building a jadetex memory dump. I never
intended to have "special needs" or to require "special formats".

I can easily modify my routine to check for latex.fmt or latex.efmt,
or only the later, or whatever. However, as I understand it, for this
check to work properly, it must match what we're using in fmtutil.cnf.

I guess the real question in my mind is what fmtutil.cnf needs to look
like for JadeTeX to work properly, but minimizing any radical changes
so Debian can proceed with the freeze. Right now it is like so:

jadetex tex language.dat &latex jadetex.ini
pdfjadetex pdftex language.dat &pdflatex pdfjadetex.ini

Given this fmtutil.cnf, my understanding is that it is indeed true
that prerequesites for building jadetex are latex.fmt, pdftex.fmt and pdflatex.fmt . What I'm hearing from Hilmar is that these plain TeX
memory dumps are no longer produced (althought they can be hanging
around), because in tetex-bin, LaTeX switched to eTeX.

I certainly don't want to require tetex-bin post-install to take 3
times longer just for jadetex's sake. I can switch around the
postinst and the fmtutil.cnf to switch to eTex -- that is, once
I'vetested that that actually works with Jade and OpenJade.

--
.....Adam Di [email protected].....<URL:http://www.debian.org/>



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 02:47:27PM +0200, Hilmar Preusse wrote:

...

(jadetex could then either switch to E-TeX and depend on tetex-bin

= 2.0.2-17) or stay unchanged and conflict with tetex-bin (=

2.0.2-17) ).

No, if we create again latex.fmt and pdflatex.fmt that checkfmt
commands from jadetex 3.13-1 will not fail, so we don't have to set
these restrictions.

Or restrict to Conflicts: tetex-bin (= 2.0.2-17). But before you do
anything wait for the next upload of tetex-bin.

That's the second choice I suggested for jadetex.

H.

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

On 11.08.04 Adam Di Carlo ([email protected]) wrote:

Hilmar Preusse <[email protected]> writes:

Hi,

I think #253098 is a mixture of different bugs. First they speak
about wrong usage of tail and mktemp not regarding $TMPDIR and later
about the incompatible change in tetex.

Yes. That is *all* #253098 should be about. I'm downgrading the bug
to normal severity.

That means that if tetex-bin 2.0.2-17 is breaking jadetex install,
I don't have any bugs filed on my package to that effect. I
haven't yet been able to reproduce the error.

Should have been easy to reproduce. Note that is only visible on a
fresh installation (like pbuilder), cause during an upgrade latex.fmt
is not removed.

No, if we create again latex.fmt and pdflatex.fmt that checkfmt
commands from jadetex 3.13-1 will not fail, so we don't have to set
these restrictions.

Well, that would be great, and I can create the conflicts.

Upload done (unfortunately with urgency=low). Go ahead.

Lets step back a second. The only reason I do 'checkfmt latex.fmt'
(etc) is that I wanted it to be obvious if fmtutil is breaking
because of problems that tetex-bin might be having in producing
memory dumps which are prerequisites for building a jadetex memory
dump.

Understood.

I can easily modify my routine to check for latex.fmt or
latex.efmt, or only the later, or whatever. However, as I
understand it, for this check to work properly, it must match what
we're using in fmtutil.cnf.

And as latex.fmt is back (due to #263296) you don't have to change
anything.

I guess the real question in my mind is what fmtutil.cnf needs to look
like for JadeTeX to work properly, but minimizing any radical changes
so Debian can proceed with the freeze. Right now it is like so:

jadetex tex language.dat &latex jadetex.ini
pdfjadetex pdftex language.dat &pdflatex pdfjadetex.ini

If you don't want to use e-TeX do it that way. I've read only some
articles in Usenet, that Knuth TeX is depreciated since beginning of
2003. Hence we decided to switch to e-TeX, cause I'm afraid, that
next Debian won't come out before 2006...

Given this fmtutil.cnf, my understanding is that it is indeed true
that prerequesites for building jadetex are latex.fmt, pdftex.fmt and pdflatex.fmt . What I'm hearing from Hilmar is that these plain TeX
memory dumps are no longer produced (althought they can be hanging
around), because in tetex-bin, LaTeX switched to eTeX.

LaTeX switched to e-TeX. Plain TeX still uses tex.fmt. Same for
pdftex.fmt. We build again latex.fmt, but latex.efmt is used, when
calling LaTeX.

H.
--
sigmentation fault


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

> I guess the real question in my mind is what fmtutil.cnf needs to look
> like for JadeTeX to work properly, but minimizing any radical changes
> so Debian can proceed with the freeze. Right now it is like so:
>
> jadetex tex language.dat &latex jadetex.ini
> pdfjadetex pdftex language.dat &pdflatex pdfjadetex.ini
>
If you don't want to use e-TeX do it that way. I've read only some
articles in Usenet, that Knuth TeX is depreciated since beginning of
2003. Hence we decided to switch to e-TeX, cause I'm afraid, that
next Debian won't come out before 2006...

With the exception of the missing dependency information, was my patch
correct with respect to switching jadetex to use eTeX? Of course, if
something like my patch were to be reapplied, it would be essential to
make it require tetex-bin >= 2.0.2-17 (which is what I forgot to do).
All my patch did was to change tex to etex in fmtutil.cnf, change
looking for .fmt to looking for .efmt in the postinst script, and
changing the symbolic links to make jadetex point to etex rather than
tex and pdfjadetex point to pdfetex rather than pdftex. I tested
these changes on my regular system and in a pbuilder environment, and
I was able to build both valid dvi and pdf files from jade's TeX
output. (As a test file, I used the documentation from one of the
files that was stalled by the jadetex installation problems.)

--
Jay Berkenbilt <[email protected]>
http://www.ql.org/q/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.tetex
From: [email protected]

On 14.08.04 Jay Berkenbilt ([email protected]) wrote:

Hi,

If you don't want to use e-TeX do it that way. I've read only
some articles in Usenet, that Knuth TeX is depreciated since
beginning of 2003. Hence we decided to switch to e-TeX, cause I'm
afraid, that next Debian won't come out before 2006...

With the exception of the missing dependency information, was my
patch correct with respect to switching jadetex to use eTeX?

AFAICS yes. Unfortunately I can't check it, as I don't have jadetex
in my unstable chroot. However: the switch to e-TeX was not part of
the grave fix so this decision should be left to the maintainer...

Of course, if something like my patch were to be reapplied, it
would be essential to make it require tetex-bin >= 2.0.2-17 (which
is what I forgot to do).

... or conflict tetex-bin < 2.0.2-17

All my patch did was to change tex to etex in fmtutil.cnf, change
looking for .fmt to looking for .efmt in the postinst script, and
changing the symbolic links to make jadetex point to etex rather than
tex and pdfjadetex point to pdfetex rather than pdftex.

Yes, I've seen that and it seemed OK to me. But as we have to create
latex.fmt anyway again due to another bug we don't need to change
jadetex aside from that Conflict. The only reason to fail was that
missing (pdf)latex.fmt.

H.
--
sigmentation fault


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)