Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:42 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> But anyway, we should try to detect whether the
>> frontend is noninteractive, and output something on stderr in that
>> case. But how to do that?
>
> No idea.
See bug #367497: Debconf should
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:42 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> But anyway, we should try to detect whether the
> frontend is noninteractive, and output something on stderr in that
> case. But how to do that?
No idea. But is it necessary to detect noninteractive use? I would
suggest some very short
Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Frank, should some more information be given to the admin in the
> noninteractive case? tex-common's postinst failing without any
> indication as to what's wrong doesn't look ideal to me.
It might be related to these debconf changes:
debconf (1.5.1) unst
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 12:40 -0400, Liam Healy wrote:
> To answer what questions I think are being asked of me:
> I do not set DEBIAN_FRONTEND explicitly, I don't know if something else
> sets it.
> I do not think I have apt-utils installed. On my computer, questions
> are generally asked while
I've lost the thread of what's going on here, but I'll presume good
things are happening.
To answer what questions I think are being asked of me:
I do not set DEBIAN_FRONTEND explicitly, I don't know if something else sets it.
I do not think I have apt-utils installed. On my computer, questions
Frank Küster wrote:
> Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> BTW, with unset DEBIAN_FRONTEND I also get the question about managing
>> the font cache. Contrary to the displayed text, the default is to manage
>> the cache with debconf which gives directories which are not world
>> writeable.
Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, with unset DEBIAN_FRONTEND I also get the question about managing
> the font cache. Contrary to the displayed text, the default is to manage
> the cache with debconf which gives directories which are not world
> writeable. :-(
Did you have apt-utils
On Mon, 15 May 2006 12:45:19 +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hm, that's strange. The line is:
> >
> > if [ $PERMS = $FONTCACHE_PERMS ] ; then
> >
> > maybe quotes around the variables would be better, but I don't understand
> > what's happening.
>
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 11:44 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If I change on my real sytem /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf in such a
> > way that TEXMFDIST is not definied and call 'dpkg-reconfigure
> > tex-common', this change is detected by the posinst s
Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think I have found an explanation for this. In check_texmf() in the
> postinst script, $checkfailed is allways set to false in the beginning.
Many thanks, fixing in SVN.
Gruß, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst.
Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, that's strange. The line is:
>
> if [ $PERMS = $FONTCACHE_PERMS ] ; then
>
> maybe quotes around the variables would be better, but I don't understand
> what's happening.
I believe I do. And yes, the solution is to add double quotes (if I am
righ
Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:09 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> "Liam M. Healy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > Writing extended state information... Done
>> > Preconfiguring packages ...
>> > /tmp/tex-common.config.100881: line 90: [: =: unary operator ex
On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 11:09 +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> "Liam M. Healy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Writing extended state information... Done
> > Preconfiguring packages ...
> > /tmp/tex-common.config.100881: line 90: [: =: unary operator expected
>
> Hm, that's strange. The line is:
>
Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I change on my real sytem /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf in such a
> way that TEXMFDIST is not definied and call 'dpkg-reconfigure
> tex-common', this change is detected by the posinst script and a debconf
> message appeares telling me that I should fix
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 12:12 -0400, Liam Healy wrote:
> On 5/14/06, Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Meanwhile this makes sense to me. 05TeXMF.cnf is managed by ucf, and ucf
> >sees that the 'previously installed' version and the 'to be installed'
> >version have the same md5sum, henc
"Liam M. Healy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following NEW packages will be installed:
> auctex libkpathsea4 libpoppler0c2 perl-tk preview-latex-style psutils
> tetex-base tetex-bin tetex-doc tetex-extra tetex-src tex-common
> 0 packages upgraded, 12 newly installed, 0 to remove and 99 n
On 5/14/06, Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 19:57 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote:
> Even though I modified 05TeXMF.cnf, I was /not asked/ about this during
> reinstallation of tex-common!
Meanwhile this makes sense to me. 05TeXMF.cnf is managed by ucf, and ucf
sees th
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 19:57 +0200, Ralf Stubner wrote:
> Even though I modified 05TeXMF.cnf, I was /not asked/ about this during
> reinstallation of tex-common!
Meanwhile this makes sense to me. 05TeXMF.cnf is managed by ucf, and ucf
sees that the 'previously installed' version and the 'to be i
retitle 366907 Checking configuration files does not work properly
severity 366907 normal
thanks
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 11:30 -0400, Liam M. Healy wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer to tex-common, the separate purge and
> reinstallation seems to have fixed the problem.
Welcome. I am downgrading in
I had a custom-made /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf which was not
removed because I had not purged tex-common; this happened because I
grepped packages for "tetex" and I didn't see tex-common.
However, when I tried to purge tex-common together with all the tetex
packages, nothing happened. It was n
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 21:18 -0400, Liam M. Healy wrote:
> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 3.0-16
> Severity: grave
> tetex-bin will not configure.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/346326 seems related, but it appears the
> problem there was that the user had modified the configuration file.
> I origina
Package: tetex-bin
Version: 3.0-16
Severity: grave
tetex-bin will not configure.
http://bugs.debian.org/346326 seems related, but it appears the
problem there was that the user had modified the configuration file.
I originally got this error after I upgraded May 6; to be sure I'm
starting clean I
22 matches
Mail list logo
