listings.sty is missing?
Hi all, I noticed that listings package was back in tetex 2.0.2 but listings.sty itself seemed missing at present. civic:~/misc/pack/teTeX/ORIG$ tar ztvf tetex-texmf-2.0.2.tar.gz | grep listings -rw-r--r-- root/root 2787 2003-02-06 21:38:00 doc/help/Catalogue/entries/listings.html drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2003-02-28 03:47:00 doc/latex/listings/ -rw-r--r-- root/root279688 2002-10-14 01:47:00 doc/latex/listings/listings.dvi -rw-r--r-- root/root 2186 2002-10-14 02:57:00 doc/latex/listings/README drwxr-xr-x root/root 0 2003-02-20 05:48:22 tex/latex/listings/ -rw-r--r-- root/root 49704 2003-02-20 05:48:13 tex/latex/listings/lstlang1.sty -rw-r--r-- root/root 73124 2003-02-20 05:48:13 tex/latex/listings/lstlang2.sty -rw-r--r-- root/root 34313 2003-02-20 05:48:13 tex/latex/listings/lstlang3.sty -rw-r--r-- root/root 1393 2003-02-20 05:48:13 tex/latex/listings/listings.cfg -rw-r--r-- root/root 72715 2003-02-20 05:48:13 tex/latex/listings/lstmisc.sty -rw-r--r-- root/root 15938 2002-10-14 00:44:00 tex/latex/listings/lstpatch.sty -rw-r--r-- root/root 16618 2003-02-20 05:48:13 tex/latex/listings/lstdoc.sty civic:~/misc/pack/teTeX/ORIG$ tar ztvf tetex-texmf-2.0.2.tar.gz | grep listings.sty civic:~/misc/pack/teTeX/ORIG$ But, curiously, listings.sty was in texmfsrc. civic:~/misc/pack/teTeX/ORIG$ tar ztvf tetex-texmfsrc-2.0.2.tar.gz | grep listings.sty -rw-r--r-- root/root 66101 2003-02-20 05:48:13 source/latex/listings/listings.sty Is this some mistake? Best regards, 2003.3.15(Sat) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Re: listings.sty is missing?
From: Staszek Wawrykiewicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: listings.sty is missing? Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:55:17 +0100 (CET) Sadly, if you're reading that mailing list and you are also Debian developer, I wrote about it yesterday. Just move listings.sty to the proper location. One bad Thomas' keystroke should be no more mentioned. Ah, sorry, to tell the truth I don't subscribe to this list and I read this mailing list only through mailing list archives in tetex home page so I'm afraid I overlooked your mail. Of course I have no intention to blame any mistakes at all. Sorry for my noise and thanks,2003-3-15(Sat) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
Re: Bug#182772: dvipdfm can't find ot1r.enc
From: Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#182772: dvipdfm can't find ot1r.enc Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 11:30:40 +0900 (JST) teTeX *has* encoding files for all text fonts of the CM set. They are extracted from the BSR type1 files and should be 100% correct. Just look at texmf/dvips/tetex/*.enc. Okay, I will check this report more precisely later. You are right, this was caused by a wrong configuration and dvipdfm works fine in Debian gnerally. Sorry for my noise and thanks again. -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Re: mktex.cnf
From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mktex.cnf Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:38:39 +0100 On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 01:04:52PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: In teTeX 2.0.1, there are two mktex.cnf, one in tetex-src and the other in tetex-texmf. Which one is a recommended mktex.cnf? The file in src is the original one by Olaf Weber. Everything is commented-out in it. It is not automatically installed. The one in texmf is what I'd like to use for the default configuration of teTeX. It seemed we Debian installed a wrong mktex.cnf so I changed to install the one in texmf. Thanks for your kind advise,2003.3.3(Mon) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Re: Bug#182772: dvipdfm can't find ot1r.enc
From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#182772: dvipdfm can't find ot1r.enc Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 22:54:32 +0100 On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 08:53:39AM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: It seemed ot1*.enc (ot1.enc, ot1alt.enc, ot1r.enc) were really missing. Nothing in (the original) teTeX refers to these files. Correct me if I am wrong. If something in debian refers to these files, debian should provide them. teTeX *has* encoding files for all text fonts of the CM set. They are extracted from the BSR type1 files and should be 100% correct. Just look at texmf/dvips/tetex/*.enc. Okay, I will check this report more precisely later. Thanks for your kind reply. 2003.3.3(Mon) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
dvipdft is missing?
Hi all, We, tetex maintainers of Debian, got the bug which said that teTeX 2.0 included dvipdfm but a wrapper script dvipdft was missing (in the teTeX 2.0 source tree). civic:~/misc/pack/teTeX/ORIG$ tar ztvf tetex-src-2.0.tar.gz | grep dvipdft civic:~/misc/pack/teTeX/ORIG$ Apparently, dvipdft was referenced in a manual page of dvipdfm. Is there any chance that dvipdft will be included in teTeX? Best regards,2003.2.12(Wed) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Re: mpost problem
From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mpost problem Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 18:33:59 +0100 and changing this to: parse_first_line = t would make things work again. Sure, but I suggest to give the user a real TeX by default. If he wants to change this default, that's his decision... Further, he advised to add to the beginning of /usr/bin/makempx parse_first_line=t export parse_first_line to prevent this going wrong for other people. A better fix was suggested by Olaf Weber: Thanks for your kind suggestions. Best regards, 2003.2.5(Wed) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
mpost problem
Hi all, I am one of maintainers of teTeX in Debian and got a bug report on mpost. Please visit http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=179505 And one of our maintainers, Julian, told me that this might be caused by the line in texmf.cnf parse_first_line = f and changing this to: parse_first_line = t would make things work again. Further, he advised to add to the beginning of /usr/bin/makempx parse_first_line=t export parse_first_line to prevent this going wrong for other people. How do you think on this advice? I noticed in ChangeLog that it said Sat Oct 26 21:54:03 CEST 2002 * remove that parse_first_line.mpost line (it does not help) so this might be already discussed in this (or somewhere else) list. If so, very sorry. Best regards, 2003-2-4(Tue) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
make failed with 20021225 beta
Hi, I tried to compile teTeX-src-beta-20021225.tar.gz and got the following error; make[3]: Entering directory `/home/kohda/misc/pack/teTeX/tetex-bin-1.0.7+20021225/texk/makeindexk' gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c genind.c gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c mkind.c gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c qsort.c gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c scanid.c gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c scanst.c gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I./.. -g -O2 -c sortid.c sortid.c: In function `sort_idx': sortid.c:53: `LC_COLLATE' undeclared (first use in this function) sortid.c:53: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once sortid.c:53: for each function it appears in.) sortid.c:53: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast make[3]: *** [sortid.o] error 1 System is Debian GNU/Linux and gcc --version 2.95.4 glibc 2.3.1, further, 20021223 beta was compiled successfully under the same system. I'm not sure this is a bug or a problem of my system but I hope this will help anyway. Best regards, 2002.12.26(Thu) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Re: make failed with 20021225 beta
From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: make failed with 20021225 beta Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 09:30:50 +0100 A possible fix is to invoke AC_PROG_CPP in texk/dvipdfm/configure.in after AC_PROG_CC. If you have autoconf-1.13 installed, then you can update your configure script by cd texk/dvipdfm; autoconf -m ../etc/autoconf I see, thanks for your advice. I just have put a fixed texk/dvipdfm/configure script at http://www.dbs.uni-hannover.de/~te/configure It seemed the above file was a bit broken, it contained many wrong CR, for example, line #47 Specify directory where the png library (libpng.a) re sides. should be Specify directory where the png library (libpng.a) resides. After fixing these, it worked fine and compilation went fine. Best regards, 2002.12.27(Fri) -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Re: is listing.sty free ?
From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: is listing.sty free ? Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 06:29:18 +0100 Btw.: it is not listing.sty (CTAN:macros/latex/contrib/other/misc/listing.sty) but listings.sty from the listings package (CTAN:macros/latex/contrib/supported/listings) that we are talking about. Ah, sorry, you are right. Thanks for your reply. Best regards, 2002/12/2 -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
is entry for omega in fmtutil.in okay?
Hi, I noticed that generated fmtutil.cnf in teTeX-src-beta-20021022.tar.gz contained the entry omega omega -.dat omega.ini It seemed fmtutil complained about -.dat to me. Is -.dat really intentional or typo ? My system is Debian GNU/Linux of unstable (i.e. the latest) version. Best regards, 2002/10/24 -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Re: is entry for omega in fmtutil.in okay?
From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: is entry for omega in fmtutil.in okay? Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:14:12 +0200 It seemed fmtutil complained about -.dat to me. Hm... I can run fmtutil --all or fmtutil --byfmt omega without any error. What did you do to get a complaint? Well, I am not sure if I could say this as fmtutil complained but it displayed as follows and I guessed it was caused by -.dat for omega. Running initex. This may take some time. ... kpsewhich: unrecognized option `-.dat' Thanks for your reply. Best regards, 2002/10/25 -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Univ. of Tokushima
Re: is entry for omega in fmtutil.in okay?
From: Thomas Esser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: is entry for omega in fmtutil.in okay? Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 01:11:40 +0200 Well, I am not sure if I could say this as fmtutil complained but it displayed as follows and I guessed it was caused by -.dat for omega. Running initex. This may take some time. ... kpsewhich: unrecognized option `-.dat' I don't know what you are doing. The strings Running initex and This may take some time are not contained anywhere in the sources of teTeX. What action causes this error? Ah, sorry for my insufficient explanation. I made Debian packages and installed them. The action above was done with their post-installation scripts. In this case, it was done as follows(excerpt); TEXCONFIG_P=/usr/bin/texconfig echo Running initex. This may take some time. ... $TEXCONFIG_P init $TEMPFILE echo Output of initex is in $TEMPFILE so its main action was texconfig init, I believe. I hope this explanation is useful enough for you. Best regards, 2002/10/25 -- Debian Developer Debian JP Developer - much more I18N of Debian Atsuhito Kohda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Math., Tokushima Univ.
