On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Iain Lane wrote: > Hey, > [...] > > That's bizarre. updmap comes from texlive-binaries; which version of > > that do you have installed? My version of updmap reads, on line 32: > > I have: > > ,---- > | laney@polihale> apt-cache policy texlive-binaries > | texlive-binaries: > | Installed: 2012.20120516-1 > | Candidate: 2012.20120530-2+b1 > | Version table: > | 2012.20120530-2+b1 0 > | 500 http://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ testing/main i386 Packages > | 500 ftp://ftp.uk.debian.org/debian/ sid/main i386 Packages > | *** 2012.20120516-1 0 > | 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > `---- > > but I can't upgrade to the new version, because of the depends on > tex-common which cannot be satisfied due to this bug. :-) > [...] > Probably this changed in the later version, if you're seeing some > different code. And indeed running that command gives "/" as a result.
So it looks like a bug which has been fixed, possibly because of this dependency problem. > Can tex-common be made more robust against failure of updmap? It's not a > depends there so must not be entirely required â maybe you don't need to > fail the installation? Maybe; have to ask Norbert. In the meantime, I suggest that you update your texlive-binaries by running something like dpkg -i --force-depends texlive-binaries_....deb which will install a fixed updmap, or patch your /usr/bin/updmap to hardcode the /usr/share/texlive/tlpkg directory. Interestingly, with the current patched (?) version of updmap, all of the code which handles TEXMFROOT is now redundant - it does not seem to be used anywhere. Julian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
