Norbert,
> How do you come to this line ... I have
> unshift (@INC, "/usr/share/texlive/tlpkg");
Good question. I didn't change anything in updmap by hand. But then I
don't understand how it became different. I went through the
texlive-binaries-*.deb files in the /var/cache/apt/archives/, thinking
that an old package's version of the file was left lying around. But
they all have your line.
So, for now I'll just reinstall texlive-binaries and see whether updmap
gets fixed.
Hmm, no it's still the same.
Oh, that's because updmap is a symlink to
/usr/share/texlive/texmf/scripts/tetex/updmap.pl, which is from
texlive-base. So, let me investigate earlier versions of texlive-base.
I therefore unpacked each of the .deb's into it's own directory tree,
and then ran
$ find -name updmap.pl | xargs grep INC
And voila:
./texlive-base_2011.20120424-1_all.deb/usr/share/texlive/texmf/scripts/tetex/updmap.pl:
unshift (@INC, "$TEXMFROOT/tlpkg");
So, the texlive-base_2011.20120424-1_all.deb has the wrong line in
updmap.pl. But probably the newest version has the correct line.
However, when I try to install the newest version, I get:
# aptitude install texlive-base/unstable
The following packages will be upgraded:
texlive-base{b} [2011.20120424-1 -> 2012.20120516-1]
The following partially installed packages will be configured:
maxima-doc maxima-emacs maxima-share tex-common texlive-binaries
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 10 not upgraded.
Need to get 14.2 MB of archives. After unpacking 374 kB will be freed.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
texlive-base : Depends: texlive-common (>= 2012.20120516-1) but
2011.20120424-1 is installed.
Depends: texlive-doc-base (>= 2012.20120516) but
2011.20120424-1 is installed.
--
-Sanjoy
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
