Re: problem with texi2dvi from texinfo 6.1

> Gavin Smith writes: > On 21 February 2016 at 19:24, Kurt Hornik wrote: >> I attach files Rd2.tex and Rd.sty. With these in cwd, running >> >> texi2dvi Rd2.tex >> >> returns 1 with warning > I tried running this but I got an error: > ! LaTeX Error: File `inconsolata.sty' not found. > C

Re: problem with texi2dvi from texinfo 6.1

On 21 February 2016 at 19:24, Kurt Hornik wrote: > I attach files Rd2.tex and Rd.sty. With these in cwd, running > >texi2dvi Rd2.tex > > returns 1 with warning I tried running this but I got an error: ! LaTeX Error: File `inconsolata.sty' not found. Can you send that file as well please?

Re: Bug#814743: [regression?] output of info --output without argument

> No, it was a mistake. Should be fixed now (once the commit finishes - Thanks for the quick fix! Norbert PREINING, Norbert http://www.preining.info JAIST, Japan

problem with texi2dvi from texinfo 6.1

Dear maintainers, Texinfo 6.1 has introduced a texi2dvi problem that will cause considerable trouble for R (www.R-project.org), where on Unix texi2dvi is used for generating pdf from latex and R's internal documentation format. I attach files Rd2.tex and Rd.sty. With these in cwd, running

Re: LuaTeX >= 0.85 support

>> If LuaTeX breaks compatibility with earlier LuaTeX files, then it >> seems acceptable in some sense not to support older versions of >> LuaTeX. If LuaTeX is stable at some point, then I'd have no >> problem with removing support for any earlier versions of LuaTeX. >> As Karl said, there's no ha

[bug #45913] MSYS gawk does not like \(CR) due to texindex SVN not keeping Linux EOL

Update of bug #45913 (project texinfo): Summary: MSYS gawk does not like \(CR) due to texindex SVN not keeping Linux EOL => MSYS gawk does not like (CR) due to texindex SVN not keeping Linux EOL Open/Closed:Open => Closed

[bug #45474] makeinfo test suite output directories should be wiped

Update of bug #45474 (project texinfo): Open/Closed:Open => Closed Status:None => Fixed ___ Reply to this item at:

Re: Bug#814743: [regression?] output of info --output without argument

On 21 February 2016 at 14:16, Norbert Preining wrote: > Hi Gavin, > >> "info --output -" outputs the dir node in the latest revision (svn >> revision 7022). However, the invocation of info is complex with > > Thanks for that. I have tried this out and found only one peculiarity: > > info -

Re: Bug#814743: [regression?] output of info --output without argument

Hi Gavin, > "info --output -" outputs the dir node in the latest revision (svn > revision 7022). However, the invocation of info is complex with Thanks for that. I have tried this out and found only one peculiarity: info --output ARG puts all the expected stuff into ARG (possibly stdout

Re: [BUG] command line definitions not expanded

> >Did this ever work, and if so, which version of texinfo.tex and > >texi2dvi? Forget this - sorry for the noise - this was introduced recently by Debian packaging. Can be closed on the texinfo side. Norbert PREINING, Nor

Re: [BUG] command line definitions not expanded

Hi Gavin, no idea, guess so. I'll try on texinfo 4.8 in stable. I just was informed of the report and it seems that it was working before. I'll investigate, and hope that the maintainer of the package will comment, too. Thanks Norbert On 21 February 2016 19:18:39 GMT+09:00, Gavin Smith wro

Re: [BUG] command line definitions not expanded

On 21 February 2016 at 09:50, Norbert Preining wrote: > HI Gavin, > >> The problem is that @setfilename is missing from the file, and >> texi2dvi looks for that line to add the extra line. @setfilename was >> required before, so this isn't a regression (I hope). > > Ahh, I see. The original did ha

Re: [BUG] command line definitions not expanded

HI Gavin, > The problem is that @setfilename is missing from the file, and > texi2dvi looks for that line to add the extra line. @setfilename was > required before, so this isn't a regression (I hope). Ahh, I see. The original did have a line like this: @setfilename @value{cmd1}.info so i

Re: [BUG] command line definitions not expanded

On 21 February 2016 at 06:19, Norbert Preining wrote: > Hi Gavin, hi all > > (please keep Cc) > > I am sorry for all the bug reports, but here is the next one that > surfaced when building the documentation for gcc. > > In short, it seems that definitions given on the command line > --comm

Re: LuaTeX >= 0.85 support

>> If it were up to me, I would simply declare LuaTeX unsupported at least >> until 1.0. It seems that tracking Hans's changes from now on will imply >> a huge investment of time and effort, let alone doing it in a compatible >> way so that people not running the bleeding edge will keep working as