Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: piuparts test: fails to install: line 43: update-updmap: command not found

2007-07-16 Thread Frank Küster
tags 400742 - wontfix
block 400742 by 308285
thanks

Florent Rougon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I suggest we remove the wontfix tag and add a block on the dpkg bug
 requesting the trigger, what do you think?

 Fine, feel free to do so.

Done.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)



Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: piuparts test: fails to install: line 43: update-updmap: command not found

2007-07-15 Thread Frank Küster
Florent Rougon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I'm not opposed to that, because this is clean. But do you realize that
 if go that route, when a package containing .tex files is upgraded to a
 version that also contains .tex files, then mktexlsr would be run *twice
 in a row*? Once by old-postrm upgrade and once by
 new-postinst configure.

 I can very well imagine the gazillion bug reports we would get if we did
 that.

I guess we should actually go that route, but only once dpkg-triggers
are available.  Then it's no harm to request the trigger multiple
times. 

 new version contains .tex files, you're proposing a system where
 mktexlsr is run twice in a row in most cases. Doesn't look like an
 improvement to the current system to me.

Not at the moment, indeed.

I suggest we remove the wontfix tag and add a block on the dpkg bug
requesting the trigger, what do you think?

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)



Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: piuparts test: fails to install: line 43: update-updmap: command not found

2007-07-04 Thread Norbert Preining
tags 400742 + wontfix
thanks

On Mit, 04 Jul 2007, Florent Rougon wrote:
 *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*
 
   If you check for the existence of TeX files in the package being built
   and don't run mktexlsr in case there is no TeX file, this is in
   general short-sighted and incorrect.
 
 *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*  *WARNING*
 
 Reason: if there were TeX files in any previous version of the package
 (up to the previous Debian release), then mktexlsr *has* to be run.

Right. As usual thanks Florent for reminding me of this.

adding again the wontfix.

 If there is nothing TeX-related in your package, don't run
 dh_installtex...

ACK-ed several times.

Best wishes

Norbert

---
Dr. Norbert Preining [EMAIL PROTECTED]Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian TeX Group
gpg DSA: 0x09C5B094  fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76  A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
---
PITLOCHRY (n.)
The background gurgling noise heard in Wimby Bars caused by people
trying to get the last bubbles out of their milkshakes by slurping
loudly through their straws.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: piuparts test: fails to install: line 43: update-updmap: command not found

2007-07-04 Thread Florent Rougon
Rene Engelhard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Reason: if there were TeX files in any previous version of the package
 (up to the previous Debian release), then mktexlsr *has* to be run.

 Why weren't they in their own package then?

Huh? I don't know. I'm not the maintainer of texpower.

 Then if the package goes away you already have the postrm run mktexlsr
 because it's there in the old package and gets run when you remove it.

Hah! So you would want mktexlsr to be run on 'postrm upgrade' for every
package that ships .tex files and runs dh_installtex, right?

I'm not opposed to that, because this is clean. But do you realize that
if go that route, when a package containing .tex files is upgraded to a
version that also contains .tex files, then mktexlsr would be run *twice
in a row*? Once by old-postrm upgrade and once by
new-postinst configure.

I can very well imagine the gazillion bug reports we would get if we did
that.

Reminder:

  * Why does mktexlsr need to be run on upgrade?

Because the list of .tex file can change (new files, removals,
renamings).

  * Why does mktexlsr need to be run by postinst configure?

Because when you go from the removed state to the installed state,
the .tex files added by the installation have to be registered.

Since new-postinst configure is automatically run on upgrades anyway,
we thought it not useful to *additionally* run it on old-postrm upgrade,
but if that's what you want, we can enable that and let you deal with
the bug reports. :-P

If I follow your reasoning, you're embarrassed seeing mktexlsr being run
on postinst configure for a package that doesn't ship tex files.
Right. But at the same time, you would like that the previous version of
the package runs mktexlsr as old-postrm upgrade because you know, the
next version might not ship the exact same list of .tex files. Since
we don't have a time machine, there is no way to know when writing
old-postrm that the next version will have .tex files (in which case,
running mktexlsr in old-postrm upgrade is useless, since it will be
run by new-postinst configure anyway). Therefore, by your reasoning,
we would have to *always* run mktexlsr in old-postrm upgrade. Since,
with your proposal of looking whether the new version contains .tex
files, postinst configure would also cause a mktexlsr run whenever the
new version contains .tex files, you're proposing a system where
mktexlsr is run twice in a row in most cases. Doesn't look like an
improvement to the current system to me.

 I'd have split out the tex files (let alone because the dependencies on
 TeX stuff) and if you app really needs them make the app depend on
 *them*, not ship them in the normal packages.

Making a new binary package only in order to avoid a dependency on
tex-common in the main package is ridiculous. tex-common is quite
small.

 This is like comparable to programs/libs, where the (public) libs built from a
 programs' source package should also not be in package foo but in
 libfooX.

Gni? The reason we need libfooX is for other packages to depend on it,
and only on it. But programs that are the only users of their libraries
don't need to create libfooX binary packages.

 dh_installmenu does not add update-menus to everything because one
 package produced has a menu file and is therefore called. It just adds
 the needed stuff to the needed packages.

So?

 In contrast to that, dh_installtex when ran without -p adds its snippet
 to *every* binary package, may it have tex stuff in it or not.

And rightly so, because if the maintainer runs dh_installtex for a
package, he should have a reason to do so. For instance, because the
previous version had .tex files.

 Anyway, I just worked around it by using -p and will keep it mind.

It is not a workaround. It is simply using the tool where it is
needed.

 Do whatever you think, but you are behaving completely different than
 many normal dh_*'s.

dh_installtex is doing more complex stuff than many dh_*'s. It is normal
that it is not a clone of all of them.

-- 
Florent


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]