Hilmar Preusse wrote: > On 07.11.05 Hilmar Preusse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >>On 05.11.05 Eddie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: >> >>>Hilmar Preusse wrote: >>> >>>>On 03.11.05 Eddie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Hi, > > >>>>>I forgot to mention that the file tetex.postinst.XXgqP8eU was >>>>>reproduced by another setup as the orginal file >>>>>tetex.postinst.XXKSxUFW was deleted accicidentally. >>>>> >>>>>I think the contents of the two files are the same. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Hmm, I guess that was an upgrade from an older version. >>>>What makes me wondering is that your postin of tetex-bin creates two >>>>LaTeX formats: >>>> >>>>fmtutil-sys: running `tex -ini -jobname=latex -progname=latex latex.ini' >>>>... >>>>fmtutil-sys: running `etex -ini -jobname=latex -progname=latex >>>>*latex.ini' ... >>>>fmtutil-sys: running `pdftex -ini -jobname=pdftex -progname=pdftex >>>>pdftex.ini' ... >>>>fmtutil-sys: running `pdftex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex >>>>pdflatex.ini' ... >>>>fmtutil-sys: running `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdflatex -progname=pdflatex >>>>*pdflatex.ini' ... >>>>fmtutil-sys: running `pdfetex -ini -jobname=pdfelatex -progname=pdfelatex >>>>*pdfelatex.ini' ... >>>> >>> >>>The contents of /etc/texmf/fmt.d/ are: >>> >>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1364 2005-10-05 22:51 00tex.cnf >>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3704 2004-08-13 20:12 01tetex.cnf >>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3091 2005-10-19 11:31 01tetex.cnf.dpkg-dist >>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 271 2005-03-09 21:05 40jadetex.cnf >>>-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 565 2005-10-31 20:40 50cyrtexinfo.cnf >>> >> >>Well, this is similar to #337945. You refused to write the >>01tetex.cnf from the maintainer over your locally changed one >>(which is BTW the default) and hence teTeX used the old entries, we >>had in teTeX 2.0. I've no clue how to solve that problem in >>general. >> > > Nope Sorry, I was completely wrong! 01tetex.cnf was introduced in > teTeX 3.0. That 01tetex.cnf visible here is equivalent to the old > 00tetex.cnf from teTeX 2.0. It has the same size the 00tetex.cnf > should have and a very old timestamp. > In preinst we move the old 00tetex.cnf to 01tetex.cnf. At any time > dpkg comes along and finds out, that 01tetex.cnf has been changed (as > it differs from that one in the package). If the user now refuses to > replace the local version by that one from the maint (which is the > default) fmtutil now starts creating formats with the old > configuration. ---> *bamm* > If you never touched 00tetex.cnf simply overwriting 01tetex.cnf by > 01tetex.cnf.dpkg-dist should fix the problem. > > That renaming is probably a bad idea. I'll open another bug for that. > > H. Dear Hilmar
I have followed your instructions in your email dated 7 Nov. The post-installation is sucessful. Regards Eddie -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
