Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 03:26:29PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 04:02:52PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote: >> >> >> >> - This system was a woody system somewhen (or testing/unstable with >> >> packages as later released with woody), with the texdocrc file >> >> belonging to the texdoctk package >> > [snip] >> > >> > It was never a woody system exactly. It was installed with testing or >> > unstable in January 2005, before sarge's release. >> >> And you never upgraded to one of the teTeX-2.9/3.0 versions in >> experimental? > > No. > >> No, it doesn't - if you installed testing or unstable in 2005 (or even >> in 2004), texdoctk was already gone by then, and dpkg wouldn't know any >> owner of the texdocrc file. I have no clue what is going on. > > FWIW this occurred in my amd64 installation, but my i386 chroot didn't > have this issue. It was installed within a few weeks of the amd64. > However I probably have not done any (or as much) purging in the chroot.
I don't have an explanation, then. But I also don't see how we could debug this further - finding out what might have deleted a file at an unknown time point in the past seems hard to do. Do you agree that we can close this bug as unreproducible? > (My i386 chroot did have the same problem with 00updmap.cfg btw.) This is a bug I understand (somehow), and it's going to be fixed in the next upload of tex-common. Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich Debian Developer
