Ross Boylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: texlive > Version: 2005.dfsg.1-1 > Severity: normal
Hi all, after reading through the bug log and what you've found out so far, it seems to me that there are a couple of issues: > The various tex's have a checkered history on this system. I think I > first tried texlive, found it was incompatible with some other stuff, > removed it, and installed tetex. > > In the recent upgrade to KDE 3.5.4 kdegraphics seemed to require texlive > packages, but these failed with an error that a file was owned by two > packages, and that I should remove texlive. I attempted to do so. > > I was able to proceed with the dist-upgrade. Then I upgraded > kdegraphics, which no longer seemed to require texlive. 1. Why does or did kdegraphics require texlive, and is not satisfied with tetex? > Then I attempted to install texlive, leading to the kind of errors > seen in the attached log. > > -- Package-specific info: > ###################################### > List of ls-R files > > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 2006-08-27 23:16 /usr/share/texmf-texlive/ls-R -> > /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXLIVE 2. It is strange that there is only one ls-R file. Please send us the output of dpkg -l tex-common kpsewhich --var-value='TEXMF' grep '^TEXMF =' /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf > ###################################### > Config files > total 20 > drwx------ 2 ross ross 256 2006-06-26 09:18 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 3 ross ross 256 2006-02-15 21:18 download > drwx------ 2 ross ross 48 2006-02-14 10:42 Mail > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1828 2006-03-31 21:14 pci > -rw------- 1 ross ross 0 2006-04-16 15:21 postponed > drwxr-xr-x 2 ross ross 80 2006-06-17 16:16 RCS > -rw------- 1 ross ross 8612 2006-07-22 12:13 sent > -rw-r--r-- 1 ross ross 850 2006-06-25 23:18 testspam 3. I've never seen such an output in a texlive bugreport, but then I haven't seen lots of them, being focused on teTeX until recently. Is this expected? > Versions of packages texlive depends on: > pn texlive-context <none> (no description available) > pn texlive-doc-en <none> (no description available) > pn texlive-fonts-recommended <none> (no description available) > pn texlive-latex-base | tetex-ba <none> (no description available) > pn texlive-latex-recommended <none> (no description available) > > texlive recommends no packages. 4. All texlive packages that do not directly depend on tex-common should have a reportbug control file that has a "report-with: tex-common" statement, and maybe more packages. 5. As far as I understood, dvipdfmx calls mktexlsr unconditionally, this should probably be a separate bug. [ from a later mail by Ross ] > dpkg: error processing preview-latex-style (--remove): > Package is in a very bad inconsistent state - you should > reinstall it before attempting a removal. > (Reading database ... terminate called after throwing an instance of > 'std::logic_error' > what(): basic_string::_S_construct NULL not valid > Aborted 6. We seem to have exposed a bug in aptitude - or maybe in dpkg. To find out which, please try the following: strace -o aptitude.trace aptitude -q install # or any commands that trigger that error dpkg --remove preview-latex-style and if the latter gives the same error, strace -o dpkg.trace dpkg --remove preview-latex-style and send the resulting files dpkg.trace and aptitude.trace. 7. Finally, try to fix the problems by downloading a preview-latex-style deb from testing or unstable and doing dpkg --force-depends --install <debfile> dpkg --purge preview-latex-style Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)