Bug#871493: dblatex 0.3.10-1 makes debian-reference FTBFS
reassign 871493 debian-reference thanks Adrian Bunk <b...@debian.org> wrote: > Package: dblatex > Version: 0.3.10-1 > Severity: serious > Control: affects -1 src:debian-reference > > https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/rb-pkg/unstable/amd64/debian-reference.html > > ... > xelatex failed > stdin.tex:75: Unable to load picture or PDF file 'debian-openlogo.png'. This hints at the underlying problem: dblatex can't find the image file at the location the DocBook source points to: After fixing the location: dblatex succeeds (although you might want to use a vector graphics file format like pdf for the logo). > Works after downgrading dblatex to 0.3.9-3 This works as front cover support is a new feature of dblatex, compare /usr/share/doc/dblatex/changelog.gz: Release 0.3.10: --- - Add the ability to set images for front and back covers In summary: the new dblatex version reveals an old inconsistency within your DocBook source. Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#863890: dblatex: postrm fails on jessie to stretch upgrade
Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> wrote: > Norbert Preining <prein...@logic.at> wrote: > > Since the postinst script does nothing else TeX related, it would be > > the simplest solution to completly drop the code about mktexlsr. > > This suggestion renders the discussion above about a direct dependency > on texlive-binaries obsolete. I would be happy to drop the mktexlsr > calls in postrm/postinst. In this case the postrm call failed, thus the > fix needs to be applied to *jessie* dblatex, doesn't it? I have filed BTS #864201 against release.debian.org suggesting a fix targeted at jessie dblatex: removing the mktexlsr call from postrm -- Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#863890: dblatex: postrm fails on jessie to stretch upgrade
Norbert Preining <prein...@logic.at> wrote: Hi Norbert, thanks for your feedback. > > > # A call to 'mktexlsr' is needed to register the dblatex TeX files > > > # in the TeX database '/var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN'. > > There is a simple bug here: > * no dependency on texlive-binaries, which provides mktexlsr dblatex depends on texlive, which depends on texlive-latex-base, which depends on texlive-binaries. Is this indirect dependency too weak? Would an explicit, direct dependency on texlive-binaries have led to another apt order in the dist-upgrade? > Furthermore, it would be much simpler to *NOT* do anything as mktexlsr > is called automatically (trigger on /usr/share/texmf). Sorry, didn't know this. > Since the postinst script does nothing else TeX related, it would be > the simplest solution to completly drop the code about mktexlsr. This suggestion renders the discussion above about a direct dependency on texlive-binaries obsolete. I would be happy to drop the mktexlsr calls in postrm/postinst. In this case the postrm call failed, thus the fix needs to be applied to *jessie* dblatex, doesn't it? Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#863890: postrm fails on jessie to stretch upgrade
Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunder...@bigfoot.com> wrote: Hi release managers, in order to fix an error that has happened on a number of systems when dist-upgrading from jessie to stretch, I need to make a small change to the postrm script of jessie dblatex: the call of the texlive command "mktexlsr" must only happen if the command actually is available. To be on the safe side, the same change needs to be applied to the postinst script of stretch dblatex. And in order to avoid this problem when dist-upgrading from stretch to buster, the jessie postrm change needs to be taken over to stretch dblatex. However the jessie fix will avoid the observed error only if installed *before* dist-upgrading to stretch. How to inform the dist-upgrading users about this requirement? > On Sat, Jun 03, 2017 at 07:27:10PM +0200, Andreas Hoenen wrote: > > Or is it something that the users are told in the release notes? > > The only requirement I'm able to find there is upgrading to the latest > > stable point release [1]. Are there plans for a final jessie point > > release? > > You'd have to ask the release managers for this. Thus the question adressed to you: Are there plans for a final jessie point release? If this point release would include a new, fixed dblatex jessie version 0.3.5-3, users would install it as part of the recommended dist-upgrade preparation. Your advice about how to proceed is appreciated. Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#863890: postrm fails on jessie to stretch upgrade
Steinar H. Gunderson <sgunder...@bigfoot.com> wrote: > Package: dblatex > Version: 0.3.5-2 > Severity: serious > > Hi, > > When dist-upgrading from jessie to stretch, I've seen this happen on a number > of systems: > > Removing dblatex (0.3.5-2) ... > /var/lib/dpkg/info/dblatex.postrm: 44: /var/lib/dpkg/info/dblatex.postrm: > mktexlsr: not found > dpkg: error processing package dblatex (--remove): > subprocess installed post-removal script returned error exit status 127 > Removing texlive-math-extra (2014.20141024-1) ... > Processing triggers for man-db (2.7.0.2-5) ... > Errors were encountered while processing: > dblatex > E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) > > This breaks the upgrade. It might be that we need a fix in jessie, > but I don't honestly know the best fix, as it seems to be about > removing the old package, not installing the new one. I've included a full Hi, mktexlsr needs to be called in dblatex postrm/postinst, as documented there: # A call to 'mktexlsr' is needed to register the dblatex TeX files # in the TeX database '/var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN'. Unfortunately in this special case the texlive packages (providing mktexlsr) are not present when calling dblatex postrm: > Versions of packages dblatex depends on: > ii docbook-xml 4.5-8 > ii python2.7.13-2 > ii python-apt1.4.0~beta3 > pn texlive > pn texlive-bibtex-extra > pn texlive-extra-utils > pn texlive-latex-extra > pn texlive-math-extra > ii xsltproc 1.1.29-2.1 A possible solution would be to check for the availability of mktexlsr in dblatex postrm/postinst and to call it only when found. Changing this in stretch dblatex is easy (with a new version 0.3.9-3), but I'm not sure how a corresponding change in jessie dblatex (with a new version 0.3.5-3) would reach the jessie installations out there: is there any mechanism that upgrades jessie installations to the most recent jessie packages first before upgrading to stretch in a second step? Or is it something that the users are told in the release notes? The only requirement I'm able to find there is upgrading to the latest stable point release [1]. Are there plans for a final jessie point release? Another question: after releasing new dblatex jessie version 0.3.5-3, I need to incorporate the new jessie changelog entry into the changelog of the new dblatex stretch version 0.3.9-3, don't I? Although this will add to the differences between 0.3.9-2 and 0.3.9-3, which the release managers request to keep as minimal as possible. BTW, as usual I would need sponsorship for the two new releases as I have no upload rights. Any advice is highly appreciated. [1] https://www.debian.org/releases/testing/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.en.html#system-status Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#840189: fixed in texlive-extra 2016.20161103-1
Norbert Preining <prein...@debian.org> wrote: > > fixed: the bug title says "dblatex (<< 0.3.9-1~)", but I can see for > > texlive-latex-extra 2016.20161103-1: > > > > Breaks: dblatex (<< 0.3.8-2~), [...] > > Well, when I committed the change it was 0.3.8-2~, and nobody informed > me that there was 0.3.9-1 since then. 0.3.8-1 was the latest released dblatex version when the new texlive-extra version broke it (although dblatex is to blame for the incompatibility due to invoking an internal TeX function). At this time it had not been decided yet whether the incompatibility would be fixed by an own patch release (=> 0.3.8-2) or by integrating a fix into the new upstream release that I was packaging when the bug was reported (=> 0.3.9-1). > The version is still correct, as between the fixed version and > the version against the package breaks there is no other version > in existence. Exactly. BTW, sorry for the trouble and thanks for your cooperation. Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#840189: dblatex fails in pdflatex: Use of \@xmultirow doesn't match its definition
Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> wrote: > Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> wrote: > > > Anders Kaseorg <ande...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > Package: dblatex > > > Version: 0.3.8-1 > > > Severity: grave > > > > > > dblatex in sid fails on every document as follows: > > > > Hi Benoît, > > > > I want to notify you about Debian BTS report #840189 [1], indicating > > that dblatex doesn't work together with the new version of multirow.sty > > [2]: > > Hi Benoît, > > the attached hotfix [1] seems to resolve the incompatibility between > dblatex and the new multirow.sty version. > > However avoiding to call the \@xmultirow macro if it an internal one > would be a cleaner solution. > Hi Benoît, is the problematic paragraph labeled "% Make \@xmultirow long" in dbk_table.sty *needed at all* within current dblatex? I can't find any calls of the \@xmultirow macro within dblatex, and after commenting out the paragraph a DocBook example with a table containing multirows still is transformed to PDF without errors and looks as expected. Eliminating this paragraph from dbk_table.sty seems to be cleaner, more robust and future-proof than my previous hotfix candidate. What do you think? Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#840189: dblatex fails in pdflatex: Use of \@xmultirow doesn't match its definition
Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de> wrote:
> Anders Kaseorg <ande...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Package: dblatex
> > Version: 0.3.8-1
> > Severity: grave
> >
> > dblatex in sid fails on every document as follows:
>
> Hi Benoît,
>
> I want to notify you about Debian BTS report #840189 [1], indicating
> that dblatex doesn't work together with the new version of multirow.sty
> [2]:
Hi Benoît,
the attached hotfix [1] seems to resolve the incompatibility between
dblatex and the new multirow.sty version.
However avoiding to call the \@xmultirow macro if it an internal one
would be a cleaner solution.
What do you think?
[1] Author: Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de>
Description: hotfix for BTS report #840189:
Adapt to signature change of \@xmultirow macro (between texlive-latex-extra
versions 2016.20160819-1 and 2016.20161008-1).
--- a/latex/style/dbk_table.sty
+++ b/latex/style/dbk_table.sty
@@ -24,12 +24,13 @@
% Make \@xmultirow long
\expandafter\long\expandafter\def%
\expandafter\@xmultirow%
-\expandafter#\expandafter1%
-\expandafter[\expandafter#\expandafter2\expandafter]%
-\expandafter#\expandafter3%
-\expandafter[\expandafter#\expandafter4\expandafter]%
-\expandafter#\expandafter5%
-\expandafter{\@xmultirow{#1}[#2]{#3}[#4]{#5}}
+\expandafter[\expandafter#\expandafter1\expandafter]%
+\expandafter#\expandafter2%
+\expandafter[\expandafter#\expandafter3\expandafter]%
+\expandafter#\expandafter4%
+\expandafter[\expandafter#\expandafter5\expandafter]%
+\expandafter#\expandafter6%
+\expandafter{\@xmultirow[#1]{#2}[#3]{#4}[#5]{#6}}
% For the newtbl code
\newdimen\newtblstarfactor%
Regards, Andreas
--
Andreas Hoenen <andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de>
GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE
A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B
82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Bug#634563: dblatex: Bug#634563: xmlunit: FTBFS: [apply] grep: at10.log: No such file or directory
Andreas Hoenen andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de wrote:
Hi Benoît,
I want to inform you of Debian BTS report #634563 [1], which has been
tracked down from the affected package xmlunit (a library that enables
unit testing of XML) to dblatex:
snip/
Attached is the problematic file [2]: by comparison of intermediate
files XMLUnit-Java.tex for both dblatex versions and some experimenting
I have tracked down the problem to the command:
pdftitle={XMLUnit Java User's Guide
\imgexists{xmlunit.png}{{\imgevalsize{xmlunit.png}{\includegraphics[width=331pt,height=100pt,keepaspectratio=true]{xmlunit.png{}
},%
Image inclusion in PDF title is a new feature of version 0.3.2, isn't
it? However there seems to be a problem with it, unfortunately I'm in
lack of the necessary in-depth TeX knowledge to analyze further.
snip/
Hi Benoît,
meanwhile I think that the problem is not about how to include an image
into the pdftitle field, but that the image clause has been included
_accidentally_ into the pdftitle: the image clause is only targeted at
the document's title, but not for the pdftitle field. Correct?
Thus I have created a somewhat clumsy hotfix [1]: computing a separate
XSL variable pdftitle based on the contents of the previously computed
XSL variable title, stripping off any image clause. Detecting and
stripping off an embedded image clause is somewhat fragile: if you ever
change the structure of the image clause in title determination,
pdftitle computation would need to get adapted.
At least both possible settings of configuration parameter
imagedata.file.check are taken into account, I used the pdfinfo
command for inspecting the resulting pdftitle value.
If you are developing a more elegant respectively robust way for fixing
the problem, let me know, otherwise I would release a new Debian dblatex
release with my hotfix soon, as the BTS report is quite urgent due to
the FTBFS: Serious (policy violations or makes package unfit for
release)
[1] Author: Andreas Hoenen andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de
Description: Patch for BTS report #634563:
Don't try to include a title image in the pdftitle field of TeX package
hyperref, as this field doesn't support images.
--- a/xsl/preamble.xsl
+++ b/xsl/preamble.xsl
@@ -104,6 +104,21 @@
|articleinfo/title
|artheader/title)[1] mode=coverpage/
/xsl:variable
+ xsl:variable name=pdftitle.image.start.clause
+xsl:choose
+ xsl:when test=$imagedata.file.check='1'\imgexists/xsl:when
+ xsl:otherwise{\imgevalsize/xsl:otherwise
+/xsl:choose
+ /xsl:variable
+ xsl:variable name=pdftitle
+xsl:choose
+ xsl:when test=contains($title,$pdftitle.image.start.clause)
+xsl:value-of select=substring-before($title,
+ $pdftitle.image.start.clause)/
+ /xsl:when
+ xsl:otherwisexsl:value-of select=$title//xsl:otherwise
+/xsl:choose
+ /xsl:variable
!-- Get the Authors --
xsl:variable name=authors
@@ -135,7 +150,7 @@
xsl:text},%#10;/xsl:text
/xsl:if
xsl:textpdftitle={/xsl:text
- xsl:value-of select=$title/
+ xsl:value-of select=$pdftitle/
xsl:text},%#10;/xsl:text
xsl:textpdfauthor={/xsl:text
xsl:value-of select=$authors/
Regards, Andreas
--
Andreas Hoenen andr...@hoenen-terstappen.de
GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE
A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B
82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE
pgprH7tiGOUhj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Bug#434433: apt-show-versions fails to install
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip/ In this specific machine I get this error, but I've tried in other etch's and can't reproduce this. Any idea of what's going wrong here? # aptitude install apt-show-versions snip/ Weak references are not implemented in the version of perl at /usr/lib/perl5/AptPkg/hash.pm line 8 BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at /usr/lib/perl5/AptPkg/hash.pm line 8. snip/ Hi, some quick remarks: It looks like your perl installation on the specific machine is somehow broken. The best information source I have found after some googling is [1]. Maybe the output of the following commands on the problematic and on a working machine will narrow down the problem: perl -e use Scalar::Util 'weaken' dpkg -l perl-base debsums perl-base perl -MScalar::Util -MData::Dumper -e 'print Dumper(\%INC)' perl -V If the first statement fails on the on the specific machine, but succeeds on the working machine, then it is either a broken perl installation or a bug in the perl packages. In either case apt-show-versions is only a problem victim, but not its cause. One possible cause (from [1]) is a problem with /usr/lib/perl/5.8.8/auto/List/Util/Util.so [1] http://www.perlmonks.org/?node_id=481322 Regards, Andreas Hoenen -- Andreas Hoenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE pgpD6hyS39DW4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#396880: dblatex: error in file dblatex/xsl/docbook.xsl
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:43:26 +0100 Andreas Hoenen wrote: --=-=-= On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:55:36 PST Steve Langasek wrote: Hi Andreas, snip/ Do you have packages prepared that are ready for sponsoring? I may have time to sponsor such an upload. snip/ Work on 0.2-1 is progressing well, until now all tests succeed. But I will sleep one night on it. If tomorrow I consider the package still in good shape and the final tests succeed, I will upload it to mentors.debian.net (and inform you). Thus I hope to get ready at dblatex 0.2-1 has just been uploaded to mentors.debian.net. Steve, if you still have time to sponsor it, this would be great. Some short comments: The documentation of package cdbs is a good test candidate, as it uses dblatex: make pdf respectively make ps The warnings at dblatex upgrade to 0.2-1 about not being able to delete not empty directory /etc/dblatex/ is related to solved bug #395207. I don't know of any way to avoid these warnings, nevertheless the postinst will remove the former conffiles if (and only if) all of them are unmodified. Besides passed lintian, linda and pbuilder tests my private little DocBook regression test suite builds well in pbuilder (and the results look like expected), thus I'm quite confident that the package is in good shape despite the major changes. And finally: Is the the version's low urgency appropriate, or should I (or you) increase it? Thanks, Andreas Hoenen -- Andreas Hoenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE pgpC8sLbqo8bU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#396880: dblatex: error in file dblatex/xsl/docbook.xsl
You're right, unfortunately dblatex has a problem that has been ignored by xsltproc before release 1.1.18-1. The problem has been discussed yesterday/today in the mailing list dblatex-devel [1] (although the mail thread does not seem to have hit the list archive yet), resulting in the following simple patch: diff -u -r1.1 legalnotice.xsl --- legalnotice.xsl 31 Jul 2005 18:47:23 - 1.1 +++ legalnotice.xsl 2 Nov 2006 23:56:38 - @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ /xsl:template xsl:template name=print.legalnotice - xsl:param name=$nodes select=./ + xsl:param name=nodes select=./ xsl:if test=$nodes xsl:text %% The file to be patched is /usr/share/xml/docbook/stylesheet/dblatex/xsl/legalnotice.xsl I'm currently working at high pressure on a debian release of dblatex 0.2 with this bug fix included. I hope to get someone to sponsor the new release quickly, thus hopefully this problem should be out of the world soon. [1] http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=48627 Regards, Andreas Hoenen -- Andreas Hoenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE pgpowH0o8D51K.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#396880: dblatex: error in file dblatex/xsl/docbook.xsl
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:33:02 +0100 Sebastien Blondeel wrote: On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 08:05:29PM +0100, Frank K=FCster wrote: Can you please provide an example document that shows this problem? Ideally a minimized one. I now have a better understanding of the problem. This works: -=3D-=3D-=3D ?xml version=3D1.0? !DOCTYPE para PUBLIC -//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.4//EN http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd; paraWelcome to my documentmdash;quite a small one./para -=3D-=3D-=3D You seem to have messed up with the bug report numbers: your explanation belongs to the mdash; problem, but not to the crash of dblatex with xsltproc 1.1.18. I think Frank's request for an example document on the crash is outdated as any document crashes, the problem is understood and a patched version is being prepared. I appreciate your idea about decreasing the urgency of the mdash; problem, I will look at it, but only after solving the grave bug. Regards, Andreas Hoenen -- Andreas Hoenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE pgpUEbMx5uosu.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#396880: dblatex: error in file dblatex/xsl/docbook.xsl
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:55:36 PST Steve Langasek wrote: Hi Andreas, On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 08:02:24PM +0100, Andreas Hoenen wrote: I'm currently working at high pressure on a debian release of dblatex 0.2 with this bug fix included. I hope to get someone to sponsor the new release quickly, thus hopefully this problem should be out of the world soon. Do you have packages prepared that are ready for sponsoring? I may have time to sponsor such an upload. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ Thanks for your kind offer. (We all do hate grave bugs as short before etch, don't we?) I have uploaded dblatex 0.2~pre-1 to mentors.debian.net some days ago, but as it does not fix the grave bug (and as the next upstream version has been released meanwhile), it does not seem to make much sense to release it. Work on 0.2-1 is progressing well, until now all tests succeed. But I will sleep one night on it. If tomorrow I consider the package still in good shape and the final tests succeed, I will upload it to mentors.debian.net (and inform you). Thus I hope to get ready at Saturday, or at worst at Sunday. If you could examine the package and sponsor it, this would be just great, as both my default sponsor, Lucas Wall, and Andreas Barth who has volunteered to sponsor 0.2~pre-1 seem to be very busy at the moment. Regards, Andreas Hoenen -- Andreas Hoenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE pgpHUqbljeJQT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#327616: How to get rid of db2latex-xsl in etch
On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:17:10 +0200 Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= wrote: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - The problems mentioned later in #327616 by Andreas Hoehnen, the fact that the PS documentation cannot be created, is not an issue: cdbs does not want to create PS documentation. Moreover, the error is small, well-known and easy to fix, I've reported a bug against dblatex, with a patch. When will that be applied? I don't know - but as I said, it is just cosmetics, since the PS creation is not needed. The upcoming version of dblatex, 0.2~pre-1, correctly builds the PS output of the cdbs documentation. This version already has been uploaded to my sponsor (as I'm not a DD), thus Franks patch is not included. The upstream author seems to have solved the problem in another way. Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE pgpix5ddrPQ2k.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#327616: [xml/sgml-pkgs] Bug#327616: db2latex-xsl: admin directory missing in source archive
Hello, On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:01:55 - W. Borgert wrote: snip/ Using just dblatex in doc/Makefile is easy, but there is a minor problem: The PS output does not build (not needed nor used, but still...). Patch to cdbs attached. Btw: In the XML file, snip/ The situation for dblatex is as follows: The current testing/unstable version 0.1.10-1 succeeds for pdf, but fails for ps (as stated by Wolfgang). The already packaged version 0.2~pre-1 (currently being examined by my sponsor before uploading) unfortunately has a regression bug for the CDBS documentation, that is the pdf generation fails :-( The upstream author already has fixed this bug, a patch sent to me resolves the problem. Upstream version 0.2 is promised to be released soon, it should behave like patched version 0.2~pre. For this version besides the pdf generation also the ps generation succeeds. Regards, Andreas -- Andreas Hoenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/B888D2CE A4A6 E8B5 593A E89B 496B 82F0 728D 8B7E B888 D2CE pgppnBJWHQHQY.pgp Description: PGP signature
