jadetex vs etex

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #265078 http://bugs.debian.org/265078

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:29:05 -0400
From: Adam Di Carlo <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: jadetex vs etex

--=-=-=

Package: jadetex
Version: 3.13-2
Severity: grave

--=-=-=
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

X-From-Line: <email address hidden> Wed Aug 11 05:38:41 2004
Return-Path: <email address hidden>
X-Original-To: <email address hidden>
Delivered-To: <email address hidden>
Received: from spohr.debian.org (spohr.debian.org [128.193.0.4])
 by sopa (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8E668FB8D
 for <email address hidden>; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 05:38:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from debbugs by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
 id 1BupTm-00010C-00; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:33:06 -0700
X-Loop: <email address hidden>
Subject: Bug#253098: Maintainer upload 3.13-2 backed out fix from NMU,
 jadetex is again completely broken.
Reply-To: Andreas Metzler <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Resent-From: Andreas Metzler <email address hidden>
Resent-To: <email address hidden>
Resent-Cc: Adam Di Carlo <email address hidden>
Resent-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:33:06 UTC
Resent-Message-ID: <email address hidden>
X-Debian-PR-Message: report 253098
X-Debian-PR-Package: jadetex
X-Debian-PR-Keywords: fixed patch
Received: via spool by <email address hidden> id=B253098.109221632032181
 (code B ref 253098); Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:33:06 UTC
Received: (at 253098) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Aug 2004 09:25:20 +0000
Received: from server.logic.univie.ac.at [131.130.190.41] ([choEKS7/Ohifx5Ki8XqqwQNWciMkLlZt])
 by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
 id 1BupMG-0008MI-00; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:25:20 -0700
Received: from m-134-246.adsl.univie.ac.at ([131.130.134.246])
 by server.logic.univie.ac.at with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
 id 1BupMB-0006p0-UP; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:25:17 +0200
Received: from ametzler by downhill.univie.ac.at with local (Exim 4.34)
 id 1BupMC-00069Z-A6; Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:25:16 +0200
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:25:16 +0200
From: Andreas Metzler <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Message-ID: <email address hidden>
X-GPG-Fingerprint: BCF7 1345 BE42 B5B8 1A57 EE09 1D33 9C65 8B8D 7663
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
Delivered-To: <email address hidden>
Resent-Sender: Debian BTS <email address hidden>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on sopa.onshored.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
 version=2.63
Lines: 54
Xref: sopa.onshored.com debian.bugs:1681
MIME-Version: 1.0

tags 253098 - fixed
thanks

Adam Di Carlo <email address hidden> wrote
[...]
> jadetex (3.13-2) unstable; urgency=low
> .
> * back out previous NMU completely; the change to etex is irrelevant to
> any problem reports I've seen, and moreover, the "fix" broke install;
> closes: #264926
> the original bug #253098 was a coreutils problem; that bug as well
[...]

And jadetex is uninstallable again and will continue to break
autobuilding of any package build-depending e.g via...

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:05:09 -0400
From: Adam Di Carlo <email address hidden>
To: Andreas Metzler <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#253098: Maintainer upload 3.13-2 backed out fix from NMU,
 jadetex is again completely broken.

Andreas Metzler <email address hidden> writes:

> And jadetex is uninstallable again and will continue to break
> autobuilding of any package build-depending e.g via docbook-utils on
> jadetex.

Ok, I understand. I think it works for me because I'm upgrading from
a previous tex.

I've filed a new grave bug for this. It's a completely unrelated
installation problem from the original report. Any followup to this
bug, please put on bug 265078.

I'm trying to get clarity from the tetex maintainers what is the best
course of action. They are telling me that they will supply .fmt
files in the next tetex. Alternatively, I could check for the .efmt
files, or remove the check completely. Alternatively, I could switch
to etex, then switch back when tex becomes etex.

For my information, can you run this command as root in your pbuilder
and send the output to this bug?

 fmtutil --cnffile /etc/texmf/fmt.d/40jadetex.cnf --byfmt jadetex

I don't want to hasily change from tex to etex, because jadetex is
pretty fragile, and we have to deal with pool size and other
configuration issues. OTOH, I don't rule out doing that...

--
.....Adam Di <email address hidden>.....<URL:http://www.debian.org/>

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:44:50 +0200
From: Andreas Metzler <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#253098: Maintainer upload 3.13-2 backed out fix from NMU,
 jadetex is again completely broken.

--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 01:05:09PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <email address hidden> writes:
> > And jadetex is uninstallable again and will continue to break
> > autobuilding of any package build-depending e.g via docbook-utils on
> > jadetex.

> Ok, I understand. I think it works for me because I'm upgrading from
> a previous tex.

Probably.

[...]
> I'm trying to get clarity from the tetex maintainers what is the best
> course of action. They are telling me that they will supply .fmt
> files in the next tetex. Alternatively, I could check for the .efmt
> files, or remove the check completely. Alternatively, I could switch
> to etex, then switch back when tex becomes etex.

I have no idea about TeX internalsand packaging, but if this
sounds convincing, from an outsider'spoint of view:
| Hilmar Preusse <email address hidden>
| > Special formats? I simply check that the memory dumps are generated,
| > and that memory dumps for any required packages are present.
| > In a nutshell:
| >
| > kpsewhich latex.fmt
| > kpsewhich pdftex.fmt
| > kpsewhich pdflatex.fmt
| >
| > Is there anything wrong or buggy in doing this?
| >
| I have no clue, why you do that at all. AFAICS jadetex depends on
| tetex-bin. It won't configure until tetex-bin has the state ii. If
| this is the case you have a working teTeX system^1 and all formats to
| run TeX, LaTeX etc. do exist. Independent of if they are called
| latex.fmt or latex.efmt.

If this is correct and just dropping the test works, it sure sounds
like the best solution, because it is
a) minimal
b) can be applied immediately, without waiting for a fixed tetex
c) will continue to work after tetex is fixed.

> For my information, can you run this command as root in your pbuilder
> and send the output to this bug?
>
> fmtutil --cnffile /etc/texmf/fmt.d/40jadetex.cnf --byfmt jadetex
[...]

(This loops infinitely as user, ;-)

I get identical output with 3.13-1 and -2 installed (but of course
unconfigured), see attachment.

Hmm, that is big fat error, so it looks like simply dropping the test
is not enough.
        thanks, cu andreas

--SLDf9lqlvOQaIe6s
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=jadetex-unconfigured

running `tex -ini -jobname=jadetex -progname=jadetex &latex jadetex.ini' ...
This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.4.5) (INITEX)
kpathsea: Running mktexfmt latex.fmt
running `etex -ini -jobname=latex -progname=latex *latex.ini' ...
This is e-TeX, Version 3.14159-2.1 (Web2C 7.4.5) (INITEX)
entering extended mode
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/config/latex.ini
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/base/latex.ltx
(/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/config/texsys.cfg)
./texsys.aux found

\@currdir set to: ./.

Assuming \openin and \input
have the same search path.

...

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:57:36 +0200
From: Andreas Metzler <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#253098: Maintainer upload 3.13-2 backed out fix from NMU,
 jadetex is again completely broken.

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 01:05:09PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <email address hidden> writes:
> > And jadetex is uninstallable again and will continue to break
> > autobuilding of any package build-depending e.g via docbook-utils on
> > jadetex.

> Ok, I understand. I think it works for me because I'm upgrading from
> a previous tex.

> I've filed a new grave bug for this. It's a completely unrelated
> installation problem from the original report. Any followup to this
> bug, please put on bug 265078.
[...]

I've just verified that tetex-bin 2.0.2-18[1] seems[2] to fix this issue,
jadetex is indeed installable with this version of tetex.

Therefore the only thing missing to declare this fixed is to make
jadetex conflict with tetex-bin (= 2.0.2-17).
            cu andreas

PS: How about merging these three identical bug-reports?

[1] in incoming:
* Don't revert the TeX - e-TeX migration but build the formats latex.fmt
  and pdflatex.fmt too, as they are needed in rare cases. [kohda]
  (Closes: #263296, #264043)

[2] I've installed and configured it, and built gnobog, which uses
docbook-utils.

LaMont is investigating tetex bugs

Fixed by sync of 2.0.2-20

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:58:11 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: jadetex vs etex

--/qIPZgKzMPM+y5U5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

merge 265078 265129 265484
tags 265078 sarge-ignore
thanks

These bugs appear to be identical, and according to Andreas Metzler's
analysis, the problem only occurs with a particular unreleased version
of tetex-bin; I'm therefore merging the bugs and tagging them
sarge-ignore.

If there's any reason that the current jadetex should need to conflict
with older, *released* versions of tetex-bin, please remove the
sarge-ignore tag.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--/qIPZgKzMPM+y5U5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBMt4PKN6ufymYLloRAk31AKC0e3IigUcNIKM9KBaUDR44NqCemQCffoKO
HOJkoGeLcQ+ZCpD9qvKp+rw=
=lnUF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/qIPZgKzMPM+y5U5--

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:22:50 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: jadetex vs etex

--vk/v8fjDPiDepTtA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

severity 266630 grave
tags 265078 -sarge-ignore
merge 266630 265078
thanks

Ok, and 266630 seems to be the necessary justification for not ignoring
this bug (though it's been hidden in a control message...).

I am preparing an NMU based on the patch provided in the BTS.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--vk/v8fjDPiDepTtA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBMuPWKN6ufymYLloRAtLuAKDFeh9SnBsjqOIoME1wrKxNx65CBACgv9ek
oRAnHMDKmrHBZPdqGZr9Oe0=
=cquK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vk/v8fjDPiDepTtA--

*** Bug 7683 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:54:05 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: (last time, really)

--KSyhVCl2eeZHT0Rn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

unmerge 266630
tags 265078 sarge-ignore
thanks

On closer inspection, 266630 is not the same bug as 265078; the former
is about a conflicts with tetex-base, the later about a conflict with a
particular version of tetex-bin.

It is the former bug that I will be NMUing to address.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--KSyhVCl2eeZHT0Rn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBMuspKN6ufymYLloRAnenAJ4zj9IPAa32MagCIOra/1H7p6ylUACgojpR
1kp9e7OiGZGhJCgLWzVae1I=
=y5X0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KSyhVCl2eeZHT0Rn--

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 17:12:37 +0200
From: <email address hidden> (=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?=)
To: Adam Di Carlo <email address hidden>
Cc: Andreas Metzler <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: jadetex vs etex

Hi Adam, Andreas, Steve,

Steve wrote:
> tags 265078 sarge-ignore
[...]
> On closer inspection, 266630 is not the same bug as 265078; the former
> is about a conflicts with tetex-base, the later about a conflict with a
> particular version of tetex-bin.
>=20
> It is the former bug that I will be NMUing to address.

#265078 is still open. I do not quite understand this. Either we say
that it is *not* a bug to not declare a conflict with a particular
version (of tetex-bin) that was never in testing. Then we can close it.

Or we say that, since it might still be a problem for users that have
sid in their sources list, but do *very* infrequent upgrades, it is a
bug. Then why not simply fix it, by adding the Conflicts with
tetex-bin_2.0.2-17?=20

Considering the discussion started today on -devel, *I* would close it.=20

Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Z=FCrich
Debian Developer

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:59:34 -0500
From: Jay Berkenbilt <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: jadetex no longer fails to install with pbuilder

Just doing some housekeeping on old bugs I reported.... The current
jadetex builds fine with pbuilder and also installs without a
problem. I am therefore closing this bug.

--
Jay Berkenbilt <email address hidden>
http://www.ql.org/q/