On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:03:55AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > * Frank Küster [Mon, 08 Aug 2005 12:39:04 +0200]:
> >> You can stop all build-depending on debiandoc-sgml: It has the classical
> >> bug that produces PDF output with teTeX-3.0 even when dvi is desired,
> >> causing almost everything to FTBFS. I've not yet submitted a bug,
> >> because I'm still testing the patch.
The bug is now submitted (#321942) and I will fix it in CVS today. Since
I'm no DD I rely on Osamu or Ardo for doing an upload.
> >> Should I file it as important and bump the severity to grave only when
> >> teTeX-3.0 is unstable? Or should I file as grave at once?
> >
> > Is the patch backwards compatible? (i.e., when used with teTeX-2.0,
> > will be the output correct?) If so, I would file at important and
> > ask for the patch to be applied ASAP; and NMU prior to uploading
> > teTeX-3.0 if it has not been fixed by then.
>
> Yes, it is backward compatible. It would have worked with woody (and
> should in fact have been applied back then).
Please note that bug #214249 was the reason that I introduced
\ifx\pdfoutput\undefined
\usepackage[hypertex,colorlinks=true]{hyperref}
\else
\usepackage[pdftex,colorlinks=true]{hyperref}
\fi
to debiandoc-sgml package. I agree that #214249 is not very important
but the output was definitivly different for dvi and pdf without the
\ifx.
(I copied this conditional in nearly every document I wrote since 1997,
since it worked great. I do not remember excactly why I used this
but I think I found a hint in the pdftex FAQ many years ago.
So you see that my LaTeX knowlegde reduces every year, I just live from
my experiences I made years ago, at a time when I used LaTeX daily :-))
Jens
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
