Ah! I see...

Mmmh, the problem is that I have it wrapped in the image, maybe I can make
a RUN line to replace in the file, but I don't know where it is located
from the package installation.
Could you tell me where it is?

Thank you Benjamin!

El mié, 7 sept 2022 a las 10:08, Benjamin Berg (<[email protected]>)
escribió:

> Hi,
>
> yes, the \vbox_unpack_drop:N command was removed from LaTeX 3. I
> thought I had pushed out a new release with the fix, but maybe I forgot
> about that?
>
> The fix for this is
>
> https://github.com/sdaps/sdaps-class/commit/88fcb3d4e11d9af20b79654e0232a31c37e54b61
> so you can possibly fix up sdapsarray.sty locally instead of upgrading.
>
> Benjamin
>
>
> On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 17:41 +0200, Santiago Timón wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > It has been a while since I have had to get into this. We are doing
> > some additions to our questionnaire and I bumped into the weird
> > situation where SDAPS setup seems unable to find base commands.
> >
> > To discard it has something to do with our code I have tried with the
> > example tex. And it fails at line 71 with:
> > ! Undefined control sequence.
> > <argument> \vbox_unpack_drop:N
> >  \l_tmpa_box
> > l.71 \markline{rendered equations}
> >  {ugly}{beautiful}
> >
> > I have tried finding the reason in the questionnaire.log but,
> > although I'm not very good with LaTex, I don't see anything that
> > could lead to the cause. Related class files and everything are
> > copied in the project folder and referenced relative to it.
> > image.png
> >
> > In my case, SDAPS is wrapped in a docker image I build with the
> > ubuntu PPA. I updated to 1.9.10 around April, but didn't actually
> > tried building anything, so I'm not sure if it is related to this
> > update. The docker approach seemed to work fine. It is run:
> > docker run -v $PWD:/workdir --rm --name sdaps-launcher
> > sdaps/stable:latest setup tex $project $texfile
> >
> > I'm attaching the log and dockerfile in case it helps. The entry
> > point is just sdaps "$@".
> > I hope there is something obvious to you that I'm stupidly missing.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
>
>

-- 
Santi

Reply via email to