Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 19:51:31 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: >> > Transcript written on pdflatex.log. >> > fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.fmt installed. >> > (Fatal format file error; I'm stymied) >> > debiandoc2latexpdf: ERROR: reference.en.pdf could not be generated properly >> > make[1]: *** [reference.en.pdf] Error 1 >> > >> > I assume this has to do with the recent changes to tetex-bin, but I'm not >> > really sure. > > Sigh :-( I am wondering how TeX/LaTeX folks feel about RC bugs on > documentation packages due to recent TeX/LaTeX package situation. Look > at Bug #265247 (or #265247), #265611, #264394, #263840, ... it ain't > pretty sight. > > I do not feel like adding build script hack now to package just to get > away for FTBFS serious bug unless TeX/LaTeX is stabilized.
In my opinion, the way debian-reference (and others?) worked around tetex's poor language handling is plainly wrong. As far as I understand it, you want to generate pdf's in various languages and need hyphenation enabled for each of them. Because of teTeX's previously poor handling of languages, you enabled them in a local format file you created during package build, right? - First of all, this is no longer needed. In a noninteractive or hit-ENTER-always install, you get a language.dat with patterns enabled for all available languages. - Instead of making a workaround in the package (namely, building a local format file), you should have complained with the teTeX maintainers earlier. Then we would probably have come up with the "default-all" solution earlier. > I know TeX/LaTeX has been quite actively updated. IMHO, it should be > very stable when FREEZE starts. But reality is not. If you think about > TeX/LateX, it is like GCC for C program. We should not make major change > with incompatibility at this late moment. But it happened. Yes, it happened. I didn't feel too well with some of the last changes. But as for the eTeX transition, I must say, I didn't envisage any problems. I simply didn't assume that package maintainers made such ugly workarounds instead of requesting us to do the changes they needed. > On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 11:07:47PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote: >> Looks like it. Changing bin/debiandoc2latexpdf's "pdflatex" call to a >> "pdfelatex" one seems to be a workaround. > > If new "pdfelatex" is needed, why this was not offered as an alternative > of pdflatex so it does not break build script. Is this already fix? I do not completely understand how this workaround helps. But pdfelatex is and was available - what alternatives should we have offered? And, more importantly, do the problems still occur with tetex-bin_2.0.2-18? Regards, Frank -- Frank K�ster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
