Frank Küster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So this is not a bug, but a local misconfiguration. In order to fix
your system, I think the best way is to do the following:
Did that work, and do you agree that we can close the bug?
On the other hand, we (the maintainer team) should collect all those
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 07:25:47PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
So this is not a bug, but a local misconfiguration. In order to fix
your system, I think the best way is to do the following:
- copy /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf to a safe place
- Add a file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/99local.cnf which
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 02:14:17PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
Ah, that can probably explain everything. You probably didn't accept the
updates for 00updmap.cfg and 20tetex-extra.cfg (the former with ucf, I
think; the latter is a conffile). Please:
1. Backup your old files if you
Sebastien Helleu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 02:14:17PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
# mv 00updmap.cfg.dpkg-dist 00updmap.cfg
# mv 20tetex-extra.cfg.dpkg-new 20tetex-extra.cfg
# dpkg --configure -a
--
Florent
Done, still same problem..
Here's
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 01:14:12PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
The answer to the first question - why is the wrong file found - is
unclear to me. Sebastien, what is the output of the following commands:
kpsewhich --format=map dvips35.map
kpsewhere --format=map dvips35.map
kpsewhere
Sebastien Helleu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
% kpsewhich --show-path map
.:/root/texmf/fontname:/usr/local/share/texmf/fontname:/usr/local/lib/texmf/fontname:!!/var/lib/texmf/fontname:!!/var/lib/texmf/fontname:!!/usr/share/texmf/fontname
This is bad, (Ralf, you were right), and this
% grep
Hi,
Sebastien Helleu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Output of apt:
Setting up tetex-bin (3.0-10.1) ...
What does 'dpkg -l tetex-base' say?
Running updmap-sys. This may take some time. ...
[...]
!!! ERROR: The right location for map files has been
changed for this release and the map file
Florent Rougon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What does 'dpkg -l tetex-base' say?
Well, that one was at the end of the report (if it was done from the
right machine), sorry:
ii tetex-base3.0-10 Basic library files of teTeX
--
Florent
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:33 +0200, Sebastien Helleu wrote:
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 3.0-10.1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Thanks for reporting. From which version did you upgrade?
download standard fonts (dvips): `false'
download standard fonts (pdftex):
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:12:51PM +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:33 +0200, Sebastien Helleu wrote:
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 3.0-10.1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Thanks for reporting. From which version did you upgrade?
I think
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:37:13PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
Hi,
Sebastien Helleu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Output of apt:
Setting up tetex-bin (3.0-10.1) ...
What does 'dpkg -l tetex-base' say?
Running updmap-sys. This may take some time. ...
[...]
!!! ERROR: The right
Sebastien Helleu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for reporting. From which version did you upgrade?
I think from 3.0-10.
You can confirm by looking at /var/log/dpkg.log.
Interesting, current tetex has 'true' for the last two options. What is
the output of 'ls /etc/texmf/updmap.d/'? Did you
Sebastien Helleu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
$ ls -l /usr/share/texmf/dvips/
total 52
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-22 18:08 antp
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-22 18:08 antt
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-23 02:13 base
drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-22 18:08 bluesky
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 13:45 +0200, Sebastien Helleu wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 12:12:51PM +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote:
Thanks for reporting. From which version did you upgrade?
I think from 3.0-10.
Where there any problems with version 3.0-10?
What is
the output of 'ls
On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 14:17 +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
Good. Presumably, the problem was located (only) in /etc/texmf/updmap.d/
as suspected by Ralf.
Actually, I suspect that there is a similar situation in
/etc/texmf/texmf.d/, ie, some configuration files from teTeX 2 are still
used. This
Ralf Stubner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
used. This could cause a wrong search path for mapfiles. What I am
wondering is why this problem didn't occur during the original 2.0.2 -
3.0 update. Also, why are dvips35.map and pdftex35.map still available
in /etx/texmf/dvips? I thought these files are
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 3.0-10.1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
Output of apt:
Setting up tetex-bin (3.0-10.1) ...
Running fmtutil-sys. This may take some time. ...
Running updmap-sys. This may take some time. ...
updmap failed. Output has been stored in
17 matches
Mail list logo
