Debian Bug report logs - #310321
tetex-base: Package doesn't install because of ConTeX initialization bug

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Florian Cramer <cantsin@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: tetex-base: Package doesn't install because of ConTeX initialization bug

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 05:30:12 +0200

Package: tetex-base
Version: 2.0.2c-8
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

After upgrading tetex-base to 2.0.2c-8 in a routine distribution upgrade
of the unstable distribution, the following error occured during package
configuration:

Error: `pdfetex -ini  -jobname=cont-en -progname=context *cont-en.ini'
failed

This makes the installation of the package fail altogether.

-F


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10
Locale: LANG=de_DE@euro, LC_CTYPE=de_DE@euro (charmap=ISO-8859-15) (ignored: LC_ALL set to de_DE@euro)

Versions of packages tetex-base depends on:
ii  debconf                       1.4.49     Debian configuration management sy
ii  dpkg                          1.10.27    Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  texinfo                       4.7-2.2    Documentation system for on-line i
ii  ucf                           1.18       Update Configuration File: preserv

Versions of packages tetex-bin depends on:
ii  debconf               1.4.49             Debian configuration management sy
ii  debianutils           2.13.2             Miscellaneous utilities specific t
ii  dpkg                  1.10.27            Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  ed                    0.2-20             The classic unix line editor
ii  libc6                 2.3.2.ds1-22       GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libgcc1               1:4.0-0pre6ubuntu7 GCC support library
ii  libice6               4.3.0.dfsg.1-13    Inter-Client Exchange library
ii  libkpathsea3          2.0.2-30           path search library for teTeX (run
ii  libpaper1             1.1.14-3           Library for handling paper charact
ii  libpng12-0            1.2.8rel-1         PNG library - runtime
ii  libsm6                4.3.0.dfsg.1-13    X Window System Session Management
ii  libstdc++5            1:3.3.6-5          The GNU Standard C++ Library v3
ii  libt1-5               5.0.2-3            Type 1 font rasterizer library - r
ii  libwww-ssl0 [libwww0] 5.4.0-9            The W3C-WWW library (SSL support)
ii  libx11-6              4.3.0.dfsg.1-13    X Window System protocol client li
ii  libxaw7               4.3.0.dfsg.1-13    X Athena widget set library
ii  libxext6              4.3.0.dfsg.1-13    X Window System miscellaneous exte
ii  libxmu6               4.3.0.dfsg.1-13    X Window System miscellaneous util
ii  libxt6                4.3.0.dfsg.1-13    X Toolkit Intrinsics
ii  mime-support          3.34-1             MIME files 'mime.types' & 'mailcap
ii  perl                  5.8.4-8            Larry Wall's Practical Extraction 
ii  sed                   4.1.4-2            The GNU sed stream editor
ii  ucf                   1.18               Update Configuration File: preserv
ii  xlibs                 4.3.0.dfsg.1-13    X Keyboard Extension (XKB) configu
ii  zlib1g                1:1.2.2-4          compression library - runtime

Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii  dpkg                  1.10.27            Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  gsfonts               8.14+v8.11+urw-0.2 Fonts for the Ghostscript interpre
ii  tetex-bin             2.0.2-30           The teTeX binary files
ii  ucf                   1.18               Update Configuration File: preserv

-- debconf information:
  tetex-base/olddat: true
  tetex-base/fmtutil-failed:
* tetex-bin/upd_map: true
* tetex-bin/cnf_name:
* tetex-bin/fmtutil: true
* tetex-bin/fmtutil-failed:
* tetex-bin/userperm: false
  tetex-bin/updmap-failed:
* tetex-bin/hyphen: german[=austrian-alte_Rechtschreibung], ngerman[=naustrian-neue_Rechtschreibung], french[=patois], latin
  tetex-bin/oldcfg: true
  tetex-base/oldupdm:
  tetex-base/updmap-failed:
* tetex-bin/use_debconf: true
* tetex-bin/groupname: users
* tetex-bin/groupperm: true
* tetex-bin/lsr-perms: true

Message #10 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 310321-submitter@bugs.debian.org, 310321@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: I cannot reproduce this bug... more detail?

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 13:59:51 -0700

tag 310321 unreproducible
thanks

I personally can't get this bug to reproduce here... can you give some
information as to what actually failed in pdfetex?

[As I have this version installed on quite a few machines, I'd
strongly lean to downgrading this bug if no one else can reproduce
it.]


Don Armstrong

-- 
If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to
be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
 -- Friedrich Nietzsche

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Message #20 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Florent Rougon <f.rougon@free.fr>

To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

Cc: 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: I cannot reproduce this bug... more detail?

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 23:34:59 +0200

Thanks, Don.

Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:

> I personally can't get this bug to reproduce here... can you give some
> information as to what actually failed in pdfetex?
>
> [As I have this version installed on quite a few machines, I'd
> strongly lean to downgrading this bug if no one else can reproduce
> it.]

And, if someone can reproduce it, he should make sure to post the logs
that are (IIRC) pointed to when the package configuration fails and
(again, IIRC) mentioned in the reportbug template. These are essential
clues when it comes to determine the cause of the problem.

-- 
Florent

Message #25 received at 310321-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Florian Cramer <cantsin@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

To: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>, 310321-quiet@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: I cannot reproduce this bug... more detail?

Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 02:01:29 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Am Montag, 23. Mai 2005 um 13:59:51 Uhr (-0700) schrieb Don Armstrong:
> tag 310321 unreproducible
> thanks
> 
> I personally can't get this bug to reproduce here... can you give some
> information as to what actually failed in pdfetex?

I found out, via the log files, that it's a "TeX capacity exceeded" bug.

Here's the output of what happens during install, produced by
/var/lib/dpkg/info/tetex-base.postinst:

---- snip --------------------------------------

Running initex. This may take some time. ...
Error: `pdfetex -ini  -jobname=cont-en -progname=context *cont-en.ini'
failed
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/lambda.oft installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/omega.oft installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/amstex.fmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/latex.fmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.fmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdftex.fmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdfxmltex.fmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/tex.fmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/xmltex.fmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/elatex.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/etex.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/jadetex.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/latex.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/mptopdf.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdfelatex.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdfetex.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdfjadetex.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/pdflatex.efmt installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/metafun.mem installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/mpost.mem installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/mf.base installed.
fmtutil: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/mfw.base installed.

###############################################################################
fmtutil: Error! Not all formats have been built successfully.
Visit the log files in directory
  /var/lib/texmf/web2c
for details.
###############################################################################

This is a summary of all `failed' messages and warnings:
`pdfetex -ini  -jobname=cont-en -progname=context *cont-en.ini' failed
Error running initex.
dpkg: error processing tetex-base (--configure):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1

---- snip --------------------------------------

Now /var/lib/texmf/web2c/cont-en.log names the culprit:


---- snip --------------------------------------

loading        : Context Page Macros / Logos
) (/usr/share/texmf/tex/context/base/page-txt.tex
loading        : Context Page Macros / Texts
! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [pool size=225578].
\c!linkertekst ->\c!internal! l
                               inkertekst
\setvalue #1->\expandafter \def \csname #1
                                          \endcsname
\dosetuptexts ...value {\??tk #1#2\c!linkertekst }
                                                  {\dodoubletexts {\??tk
#1}...
<to be read again>
                   \par
l.682

If you really absolutely need more capacity,
you can ask a wizard to enlarge me.


Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
 16378 strings out of 98160
 225578 string characters out of 225578
 210973 words of memory out of 1500001
 16443 multiletter control sequences out of 10000+50000
 7 words of font info for 0 fonts, out of 500000 for 1000
 0 hyphenation exceptions out of 1000
 24i,1n,25p,218b,67s stack positions out of
1500i,500n,5000p,200000b,5000s
 0 PDF objects out of 300000
 0 named destinations out of 131072
 0 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 65536
No pages of output.

---- snip --------------------------------------

I am also attaching the full log file.

-F

-- 
http://cramer.netzliteratur.net

[cont-en.log (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #30 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com>

To: Florian Cramer <cantsin@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Cc: 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: I cannot reproduce this bug... more detail?

Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:46:07 -0700

On Tue, 24 May 2005, Florian Cramer wrote:
> loading        : Context Page Macros / Texts
> ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [pool size=225578].
> \c!linkertekst ->\c!internal! l
>                                inkertekst
> \setvalue #1->\expandafter \def \csname #1
>                                           \endcsname 
> \dosetuptexts ...value {\??tk #1#2\c!linkertekst }
>                                                   {\dodoubletexts {\??tk #1}...
> <to be read again> 
>                    \par 
> l.682 
>       
> If you really absolutely need more capacity,
> you can ask a wizard to enlarge me.
> 
>  
> Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
>  16378 strings out of 98160
>  225578 string characters out of 225578
>  210973 words of memory out of 1500001
>  16443 multiletter control sequences out of 10000+50000
>  7 words of font info for 0 fonts, out of 500000 for 1000
>  0 hyphenation exceptions out of 1000
>  24i,1n,25p,218b,67s stack positions out of 1500i,500n,5000p,200000b,5000s
>  0 PDF objects out of 300000
>  0 named destinations out of 131072
>  0 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 65536
> No pages of output.

Ah, beautiful, thanks.

Can you also give the value of pool_size in /etc/texmf/texmf? (I think
the default now is 1250000) 

Looking at what I see, it seems that it is set to 225578?


Don Armstrong

-- 
"The trouble with you, Ibid" he said, "is that you think you're the
biggest bloody authority on everything"
 -- Terry Pratchet _Pyramids_ p146

http://www.donarmstrong.com              http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Message #37 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

To: Florian Cramer <cantsin@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: I cannot reproduce this bug... more detail?

Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:56:54 +0200

On 24.05.05 Don Armstrong (don@donarmstrong.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 May 2005, Florian Cramer wrote:

Hi Florian,

> > loading        : Context Page Macros / Texts
> > ! TeX capacity exceeded, sorry [pool size=225578].
> > \c!linkertekst ->\c!internal! l
> >                                inkertekst
> > \setvalue #1->\expandafter \def \csname #1
> >                                           \endcsname 
> > \dosetuptexts ...value {\??tk #1#2\c!linkertekst }
> >                                                   {\dodoubletexts {\??tk #1}...
> > <to be read again> 
> >                    \par 
> > l.682 
> >       
> > If you really absolutely need more capacity,
> > you can ask a wizard to enlarge me.
> > 
> >  
> > Here is how much of TeX's memory you used:
> >  225578 string characters out of 225578
> 
> Ah, beautiful, thanks.
> 
> Can you also give the value of pool_size in /etc/texmf/texmf? (I
> think the default now is 1250000)
> 
> Looking at what I see, it seems that it is set to 225578?
> 
Did you have the time to look into that?

Regards,
  Hilmar
-- 
sigmentation fault

Message #42 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent McIntyre <vmcintyr@atnf.csiro.au>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <310321@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:24:48 +1000

Package: tetex-extra
Version: 2.0.2c-8
Followup-For: Bug #310321


I just tried to install tetex-extra after aptitude helpfully removed
it instead of upgrading it.

the sequence of events
  vi /etc/apt/sources.list  (convert to 'sarge' source lines)
  aptitude update
  aptitude install aptitude
  aptitude -f --with-recommends dist-upgrade
  apt-get install xpdf gv
  apt-get install tetex-extra

  postinst fails on three parts of the install
  `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex *pdflatex.ini' failed
  `pdfetex -ini -jobname=cont-en -progname=context *cont-en.ini' failed
  `pdfetex -ini  -jobname=mptopdf -progname=mptopdf mptopdf.tex' failed

  apt-get install ptex-bin
  apt-get --purge remove ptex-bin
  apt-get install tetex-extra  (attempt to reconfigure)
  dpkg --pending --configure    (fails in same way)
  apt-get --purge remove tetex-extra
  apt-get install tetex-extra

The failure is always the same. In a followup I'll post a gzipped
typescript file that contains the output of tests suggested by the
maintainers in bugs 244601, 269584, 310321, 329658. I can't tell if
my bug is the same problem as those.

Since I'm following up to 310321, I'll include this one test separately:
# grep -i pool /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf 
% and string pools (.pool) for ini{tex,mf,mp}.  It is silly that we have six
TEXPOOL = .;$TEXMF/web2c
MFPOOL = .;$TEXMF/web2c
MPPOOL = .;$TEXMF/web2c
pool_size = 1250000
% Minimum pool space after TeX/MP's own strings; must be at least
% 25000 less than pool_size, but doesn't need to be nearly that large.
% min pool space left after loading .fmt
pool_free = 47500


-- Package-specific info:

######################################
 List of ls-R files

-rw-rw-r--  1 cal103 source 8694 Sep 16 14:04 /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R
-rw-rw-r--  1 cal103 source 8694 Sep 16 14:04 /usr/local/lib/texmf/ls-R
-rw-rw-r--  1 root users 877 Sep 27 13:41 /var/lib/texmf/ls-R
lrwxr-xr-x  1 root root 29 Sep 26 16:29 /usr/share/texmf/ls-R -> /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)

Versions of packages tetex-extra depends on:
ii  dpkg                  1.10.28            Package maintenance system for Deb
ii  gsfonts               8.14+v8.11+urw-0.2 Fonts for the Ghostscript interpre
ii  tetex-base            2.0.2c-8           Basic library files of teTeX
ii  tetex-bin             2.0.2-30           The teTeX binary files
ii  ucf                   1.17               Update Configuration File: preserv

-- no debconf information

Message #47 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent McIntyre <Vince.McIntyre@atnf.CSIRO.AU>

To: 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: followup

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:28:40 +1000 (EST)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

typescript attached

[log.tetex-extra.gz (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #52 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>

To: Vincent McIntyre <vmcintyr@atnf.csiro.au>

Cc: 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:12:39 +0200

Vincent McIntyre <vmcintyr@atnf.csiro.au> wrote:

> Package: tetex-extra
> Version: 2.0.2c-8
> Followup-For: Bug #310321
>
>
> I just tried to install tetex-extra after aptitude helpfully removed
> it instead of upgrading it.
>
> the sequence of events
>   vi /etc/apt/sources.list  (convert to 'sarge' source lines)
>   aptitude update
>   aptitude install aptitude
>   aptitude -f --with-recommends dist-upgrade
>   apt-get install xpdf gv
>   apt-get install tetex-extra
>
>   postinst fails on three parts of the install
>   `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex *pdflatex.ini' failed
>   `pdfetex -ini -jobname=cont-en -progname=context *cont-en.ini' failed
>   `pdfetex -ini  -jobname=mptopdf -progname=mptopdf mptopdf.tex' failed

Thanks for the detailed typescript.  The error message that causes all
these three jobs to fail is 

! pdfetex.pool doesn't match; tangle me again (or fix the path).

So we need to know whether the right pool file is found.  What is the
output of

  kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool
  ls -l `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
  dpkg -S `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
  md5sum `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`

Thank you in advance,
Frank

-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Message #57 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au

To: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>

Cc: <310321@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 08:09:00 +1000 (EST)

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

>
> So we need to know whether the right pool file is found.  What is the
> output of
>
>   kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool
>   ls -l `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
>   dpkg -S `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
>   md5sum `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
>

aach. it's picking up /usr/local/texmf which is mounted as readonly,
over NFS. (/usr/local is mounted in this way by most of our workstations.)
So this may not be a bug after all, except that it appears to me to be a
regression w.r.t. woody. On our remaining woody boxes I have tetex-extra
1.0.2+20011202 installed. Is this behaviour I am seeing the result of a
fix for wrong behaviour in that older version?

Gruesse
Vince

[log.tetex-extra.2.gz (application/octet-stream, attachment)]

Message #62 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

To: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au, 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:15:05 +0200

On 28.09.05 Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au (Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au) wrote:

Hi,

> > So we need to know whether the right pool file is found.  What is the
> > output of
> >
> >   kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool
> >   ls -l `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
> >   dpkg -S `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
> >   md5sum `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
> >
> 
> aach. it's picking up /usr/local/texmf which is mounted as
> readonly, over NFS. (/usr/local is mounted in this way by most of
> our workstations.) So this may not be a bug after all, except that
> it appears to me to be a regression w.r.t. woody. On our remaining
> woody boxes I have tetex-extra 1.0.2+20011202 installed. Is this
> behaviour I am seeing the result of a fix for wrong behaviour in
> that older version?
> 
Well, even woody never shipped files sitting in /usr/local as this
would be a policy violation. The question is now, why are these files
there: did you upgrade your pdfeTeX to a newer version than woody and
hence needed a newer pool file to generate formats?
Anyway, removing these files and running mktexlsr should fix your
problem.

H.
-- 
sigmentation fault

Message #67 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au

To: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

Cc: 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:40:52 +1000 (EST)

> >
> Well, even woody never shipped files sitting in /usr/local as this
> would be a policy violation. The question is now, why are these files
> there: did you upgrade your pdfeTeX to a newer version than woody and
> hence needed a newer pool file to generate formats?
> Anyway, removing these files and running mktexlsr should fix your
> problem.


I'm not suggesting that woody installed the files in /usr/local,
but it seems like how it handles the path ordering may have changed.

I reported this issue because I haven't experienced it before, on
other sarge upgrades, with the same setup, done over the last couple
of weeks.

To work around, I'll try unmounting the NFS /usr/local, installing
& remounting. That should work, I'll let you know.


As to why the files are there at all:
We maintain a bunch of unpackaged, non-Debian stuff in /usr/local.
There are some overlaps, such as this one, where we needed newer
versions of tetex and friends.

Obviously you wouldn't be expected to support such configurations,
but perhaps there's a way to handle them "gracefully"?
Perhaps the ordering should try the package's default directory
first, and then the /usr/local (and other locations) later?

Kind regards
Vince

Message #72 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>

To: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au

Cc: <310321@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:46:44 +0200

Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au wrote:

>>
>> So we need to know whether the right pool file is found.  What is the
>> output of
>>
>>   kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool
>>   ls -l `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
>>   dpkg -S `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
>>   md5sum `kpsewhich --progname=pdfetex pdfetex.pool`
>>
>
> aach. it's picking up /usr/local/texmf which is mounted as readonly,
> over NFS. (/usr/local is mounted in this way by most of our workstations.)
> So this may not be a bug after all, except that it appears to me to be a
> regression w.r.t. woody. 

It's not a regression, it's just that you can't do that, or rather: You
can do it, but if it works then only by chance.

Of course it's the purpose of /usr/local/(share/)texmf to be able to
override and shadow files in /usr/share/texmf, so it is of course in
order that it picks up these files.  It did the same in woody, but it
just happened that the woody versions and the versions in /usr/local
matched, whereas the sarge versions have changed.  And pool files are
closely associated at compile time to the binaries; that's why they are
in tetex-bin, not in tetex-base.

> On our remaining woody boxes I have tetex-extra
> 1.0.2+20011202 installed. Is this behaviour I am seeing the result of a
> fix for wrong behaviour in that older version?

No, neither a wrong behaviour nor a fix.  You just have to remove all
*.pool files (and probably also *.tcx) from the local tree.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Message #77 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au

To: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>

Cc: 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 18:13:43 +1000 (EST)

> Of course it's the purpose of /usr/local/(share/)texmf to be able to
> override and shadow files in /usr/share/texmf, so it is of course in
> order that it picks up these files.  It did the same in woody, but it
> just happened that the woody versions and the versions in /usr/local
> matched, whereas the sarge versions have changed.  And pool files are
> closely associated at compile time to the binaries; that's why they are
> in tetex-bin, not in tetex-base.

I'm starting to understand. Thanks for this clarification.

> > On our remaining woody boxes I have tetex-extra
> > 1.0.2+20011202 installed. Is this behaviour I am seeing the result of a
> > fix for wrong behaviour in that older version?
>
> No, neither a wrong behaviour nor a fix.  You just have to remove all
> *.pool files (and probably also *.tcx) from the local tree.

ok. I notice that those files appeared just within the last two weeks,
so I think the cause of my problem is quite clear (it's my end).

Thanks for your answers and patience.

Do you need additional info or tests to be able to close this bug, btw?

Vince

Message #82 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Küster <frank@debian.org>

To: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au

Cc: 310321@bugs.debian.org, Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:35:46 +0200

Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au wrote:

> Obviously you wouldn't be expected to support such configurations,
> but perhaps there's a way to handle them "gracefully"?
> Perhaps the ordering should try the package's default directory
> first, and then the /usr/local (and other locations) later?

That would defeat one of the two purposes of using
/usr/local/(share/)texmf  - you could still add input files, but you
could not make the system use more recent input files by putting them
there.  It seems to me this is exactly what you want in your setup.

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Message #87 received at 310321-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Frank Küster <frank@kuesterei.ch>

To: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au

Cc: 310321-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:43:38 +0200

Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au wrote:

> Do you need additional info or tests to be able to close this bug, btw?

No :-)

Regards, Frank
-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Message #92 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

To: Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au, 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:58:28 +0200

On 28.09.05 Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au (Vincent.McIntyre@csiro.au) wrote:

Hi,

> As to why the files are there at all:
> We maintain a bunch of unpackaged, non-Debian stuff in /usr/local.
> There are some overlaps, such as this one, where we needed newer
> versions of tetex and friends.
> 
Yes, this is legal. I'm doing the same. However you are on your own
if you do such things.

> Obviously you wouldn't be expected to support such configurations,
> but perhaps there's a way to handle them "gracefully"? Perhaps the
> ordering should try the package's default directory first, and then
> the /usr/local (and other locations) later?
> 
...which would make the files in /usr/local invisible to teTeX (if
you installed updated version there, which also exist in the package
path). Probably not what you want.

H.
-- 
sigmentation fault

Message #97 received at 310321@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Hilmar Preusse <hille42@web.de>

To: Vincent McIntyre <vmcintyr@atnf.csiro.au>, 310321@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#310321: tetex-extra: this bug exists on upgrade from woody to sarge

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 11:08:20 +0200

On 27.09.05 Vincent McIntyre (vmcintyr@atnf.csiro.au) wrote:

Hi,

> Package: tetex-extra
> Version: 2.0.2c-8
> Followup-For: Bug #310321
> 
I'm pretty sure #310321 has nothing to do with what you saw. Anyway
the submitter of #310321 did not react on requests and had probably a
broken setup leading to the error. So I guess we can keep it closed.

Greets,
  Hilmar
-- 
sigmentation fault

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.