Your message dated Fri, 19 May 2017 10:17:34 +0200
with message-id <>
and subject line Re: Bug#814755: texlive-binaries: LuaTeX "checksum mismatch" 
warnings in some OVF fonts on 64bit
has caused the Debian Bug report #814755,
regarding texlive-binaries: LuaTeX "checksum mismatch" warnings in some OVF 
fonts on 64bit
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

Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: texlive-binaries
Version: 2015.20150524.37493-7+b1
Severity: important

Dear Maintainer,

With some fonts, e.g., cmb10, warnings are printed in OVF fonts.
The following commands demonstrate the problem:

echo "(MAPFONT D 0 (FONTNAME cmb10))" > myfont.vpl
tftopl cmb10 >> myfont.vpl
vptovf myfont.vpl
luatex '\font\f=myfont\end'

vftovp -charcode-format=octal myfont.vf > myfont.ovp
ovp2ovf myfont.ovp
luatex '\font\f=myfont\end'

In the above commands the first luatex run gives no warnings:

    This is LuaTeX, Version beta-0.80.0 (TeX Live 2015/Debian) (rev 5238) 
    No pages of output.
    Transcript written on texput.log.

But the second luatex run gives "checksum mismatch" warnings:

    This is LuaTeX, Version beta-0.80.0 (TeX Live 2015/Debian) (rev 5238) 
    checksum mismatch in local font cmb10 (-770990554 != -770990554) in virtual 
     myfont.vf ignored.
    No pages of output.
    Transcript written on texput.log.

If we change cmb10 to, e.g., cmr10, no warning is printed in both luatex runs.

On i386 system the same versions of texlive packages never give such warnings.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.3.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages texlive-binaries depends on:
ii  dpkg              1.18.4
ii  libc6             2.21-7
ii  libfontconfig1    2.11.0-6.3
ii  libfreetype6      2.6.1-0.1
ii  libgcc1           1:5.3.1-7
ii  libgmp10          2:6.1.0+dfsg-2
ii  libgraphite2-3    1.3.5-1
ii  libgs9            9.16~dfsg-2.1
ii  libharfbuzz-icu0  1.0.1-1+b1
ii  libharfbuzz0b     1.0.1-1+b1
ii  libice6           2:1.0.9-1+b1
ii  libicu55          55.1-7
ii  libkpathsea6      2015.20150524.37493-7+b1
ii  libmpfr4          3.1.3-2
ii  libpaper1         1.1.24+nmu4
ii  libpixman-1-0     0.33.6-1
ii  libpoppler57      0.38.0-2
ii  libpotrace0       1.13-2
ii  libptexenc1       2015.20150524.37493-7+b1
ii  libsm6            2:1.2.2-1+b1
ii  libstdc++6        5.3.1-7
ii  libsynctex1       2015.20150524.37493-7+b1
ii  libtexlua52       2015.20150524.37493-7+b1
ii  libtexluajit2     2015.20150524.37493-7+b1
ii  libx11-6          2:1.6.3-1
ii  libxaw7           2:1.0.13-1
ii  libxext6          2:1.3.3-1
ii  libxi6            2:1.7.6-1
ii  libxmu6           2:1.1.2-2
ii  libxpm4           1:3.5.11-1+b1
ii  libxt6            1:1.1.5-1
ii  libzzip-0-13      0.13.62-3
ii  perl              5.22.1-5
ii  t1utils           1.39-2
ii  tex-common        6.04
ii  zlib1g            1:1.2.8.dfsg-2+b1

Versions of packages texlive-binaries recommends:
ii  python        2.7.11-1
ii  ruby          1:2.2.4
ii  texlive-base  2015.20160117-1
ii  tk [wish]     8.6.0+9

texlive-binaries suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2016.20160513.41080.dfsg-2

Am 19.05.2017 um 04:10 teilte Igor Liferenko mit:


This has been fixed:
The bug report may be closed.

I find the mantis report a little bit weird. In the report you say:

"I checked with latest build (0.89.0) from
The result is the same."

On the other hand the report states that the 0.89 has the bug fix.

Anyway: I can't reproduce it w/ luatex 0.95, hence I close that bug hereby. Thanks for the reminder!


--- End Message ---

Reply via email to