Bug#746005: Message from upstream
Hi, I'm probably the LilyPond developer most involved with GUILE 2.0 migration and I'm pretty annoyed at the current situation and the manner GUILE developers deal with it. Several months back even Richard Stallman intervened and stressed the importance of getting LilyPond moved to GUILE 2.0. Like several times before, GUILE developers promised to get actively involved only to drop out of the discussion once they were provided with instructions, an up-to-date branch/source to work with and current problem descriptions. The current situation is such that 2.0 garbage collection API is unreliable (see GUILE bug report URL:http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=19883 with the basic recommendation don't try using the smob mark mechanism any more but no real resolution). It may well be that the current workarounds implemented in LilyPond may be successful. However, this is hard to test since there is _no_ released version of GUILE 2.0 where the encoding problems in issues URL:http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20200 (workaround in LilyPond codebase, will get fixed in 2.0.12) and URL:http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20209 (workaround in LilyPond codebase, will get fixed in 2.0.12) and URL:http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20302 (unfixed so far, and since this usage _was_ already a workaround for previous problems and reverting back to the old code does not work either, this remains a roadblock) have been addressed. With the ongoing trail of suggested workarounds failing for new reasons, there has not been the possibility to actually get to the stage where it would be possible to do any serious testing with GUILE 2.0, like running the regtest suite. So it is very likely that there are more surprises lurking (particularly regarding garbage collection) once the GUILE developers get around to fixing the pending bugs in the bytevector stream port implementation. Or get around to actually following on their promises and try working on figuring out why the old workarounds for getting GUILE reproduce a byte stream stopped working. But since they decided to break them anyway in GUILE 2.1 it would likely make more sense to make the please use bytevectors for this from now on approach actually work and then let LilyPond switch to this mechanism once there is a working version of GUILE released with them. By the way: I was of the impression that TeXmacs did not work with GUILE 2.0 either. Has this changed? Is it also going to get removed from Debian? -- David Kastrup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#428908: [José Manuel Pérez [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Bug#428908: Problem whit the installation of auctex on testing
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: severity 428908 serious Davide G. M. Salvetti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From the bug submitter. configure: error: LaTeX not found, aborting! You must install LaTeX for preview to work. so, i decided to purge all about emacs and install firts : apt-get install texlive. I think we've already discussed this in some older bugreport. I repeat from memory: - auctex needs to Depend on a package which provides the latex format, i.e. texlive-latex-base, hence the severity serious - preview-latex-style only depends on texlive-base, which makes sense because you can also use it with plain TeX or ConTeXt. But I suggest that it should Recommend texlive-latex-base preview-latex-style is not usable with anything but LaTeX. Would be nice if it were, but that's how it is. - please please drop all references to tetex-*. In particular, tetex-base is now an empty package which depends on nothing. -- David Kastrup
Bug#428908: [José Manuel Pérez [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Bug#428908: Problem whit the installation of auctex on testing
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - auctex needs to Depend on a package which provides the latex format, i.e. texlive-latex-base, hence the severity serious - preview-latex-style only depends on texlive-base, which makes sense because you can also use it with plain TeX or ConTeXt. But I suggest that it should Recommend texlive-latex-base preview-latex-style is not usable with anything but LaTeX. Would be nice if it were, but that's how it is. Ah, okay. But if preview-latex-style depends on tl-latex-base, It doesn't, really. It makes little enough sense without it, but there is nothing that it would actually load or use. AUCTeX can support either LaTeX, plain TeX, ConTeXt, Texinfo, AMSTeX. For its support of LaTeX, it needs preview-latex-style. So, uh, AUCTeX depends on preview-latex-style iff tl-latex-base is installed. Or something like that. (auctex tl-latex-base) = preview-latex-style I think auctex still should get the same depends, because it does need it itself (and preview.sty might become a preview.tex sister in the future). AUCTeX can be used not just for LaTeX, though _iff_ you have LaTeX installed, it would be somewhat surprising not to use AUCTeX for it. -- David Kastrup
Bug#428908: [José Manuel Pérez [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Bug#428908: Problem whit the installation of auctex on testing
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, uh, AUCTeX depends on preview-latex-style iff tl-latex-base is installed. Or something like that. (auctex tl-latex-base) = preview-latex-style Which can in practice well expressed by letting preview-latex-style depend on latex. I think auctex still should get the same depends, because it does need it itself (and preview.sty might become a preview.tex sister in the future). AUCTeX can be used not just for LaTeX, though _iff_ you have LaTeX installed, it would be somewhat surprising not to use AUCTeX for it. Yes, but the Debian auctex package needs latex for installation, because it reruns ./configure, which fails without latex. Because LaTeX (and other stuff) is used for generating the documentation. But it is probably not a hard requirement for the finished package. -- David Kastrup
Bug#428908: [José Manuel Pérez [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Bug#428908: Problem whit the installation of auctex on testing
Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: David Kastrup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but the Debian auctex package needs latex for installation, because it reruns ./configure, which fails without latex. Because LaTeX (and other stuff) is used for generating the documentation. But it is probably not a hard requirement for the finished package. Then a --no-generate-docs option would be nice. The tarball comes with pregenerated docs. If you don't touch their sources, they are not regenerated. One can also, if one really must, pass LATEX=: PDFLATEX=: and similar to configure, and it will then pretend regenerating the docs. -- David Kastrup
Bug#366505: [tex-live] Source and Copyright question concerning cspsfonts
Zdenek Wagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 9 May 2006, Norbert Preining wrote:
You are listed in license.eng from the cstex package as authors of the
CSfonts. While analyzing the license/source situation of teTeX and TeX
live for Debian, we found that the following files:
ntimes.sty
nhelvet.sty
cspsfont.{il2,tex,xl2}
I have found my private copy of cspsfont.doc and now I understand why it
disappeared. It is written in Czech in 1995 and modified in 1998. I do not
remember details but now it seems to me that I gave the generated files
for testing and planned to provide the documentation later and forgot to
do it. I know that some bugs were fixed in the generated files later so
distribution of my ancient cspsfont.doc will not be a good idea. I will do
my utmost to resolve the license problem.
contain the follwoing statement:
-
%% The original source files were:
%%
%% cspsfont.doc (with options: `fonts,IL2')
%%
%% IMPORTANT NOTICE:
%%
%% For the copyright see the source file.
%%
%% You are *not* allowed to modify this file.
%%
%% You are *not* allowed to distribute this file.
%% For distribution of the original source see
%% the terms for copying and modification in the file cspsfont.doc.
---
There are several solutions: get the other authors to agree to release
the generated files under a different license. Reimport the changed
edited files into the source file and distribute that (depends on the
agreement of the editor of the changed files, but considering that he
has been in violation of the license, this should probably be easy to
assure), Czech or not. Add a notice that translations would be very
much appreciated.
Stuff like that.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#337447: Bug#317610: Intention to NMU
OHURA Makoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: Luk Claes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Bug#317610: Intention to NMU Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 02:14:31 +0100 I think that it would be more important to get out a working version of AUCTeX = 11.80 since that already includes preview-latex (upstream version is at 11.82 at the moment). As it stands, this NMU is bound to be obsoleted by the next AUCTeX release, which would be more important to focus on. This might be true, though it isn't reflected in the fime that has passed since this RC bug is opened... nor is it mentioned over there till now... So I propose to see this NMU as a temporary solution if that is OK with you? Debian AUCTeX maintainer is planning to upload next release. I was waiting his work. So, I've not uploaded new preview-latex revision. O.K. I'll upload next revision in a few days with your patches to close RC bug, if he won't upload next release. I presume that the next AUCTeX will have a provides preview-latex dependency or something like that (don't know the Debian package system). So it won't matter if there are newer preview-latex packages around. I also don't know whether Davide will model the new AUCTeX dependencies on existing preview-latex dependencies. Davide has a bit of a history of being overworked with regard to releasing AUCTeX: there were several other times where NMUs were looming. So as long as the responsibilities are distributed as they are, and if it is not too much work for you, it might still be worth updating preview-latex's dependencies as it is unclear when AUCTeX will actually get updated, and when this change will make it from unstable to other parties. After all, there is a number of Debian-derived distributions around. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#341226: auctex: emacs freezes with fly spell chequer activated
Do you have Emacspeak installed? A similar effect has been experienced with outdated Emacspeak versions that come with an ancient and buggy regexp-opt.el library. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
