jadetex fails to install with pbuilder

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 16:58:29 -0400
From: Jay Berkenbilt <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: jadetex fails to install with pbuilder

--qmime=_-20040811-165623-5249-14585-
Content-Type: text/plain

Package: jadetex
Version: 3.13-1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable
X-Debbugs-CC: <email address hidden>

This bug is on jadetex-3.13-1, from before the patches I submitted for
the NMU. (For what it's worth, I recognized immediately that my
original NMU should have required tetex-bin >= 2.0.2-17, but was
unable to contact the sponsor and was incorrectly non-committal about
whether another immediate upload should be done. Sorry about that.
Next time, I'll be more careful.)

I am attaching two files: the log of installing jadetex in a pbuilder
environment, and the referenced installation log.

If you look at the pbuilder log, you will see that the jadetex
postinst is checking for latex.fmt, and trying to build it upon not
finding it. It then tries to recreate it. Because of the tetex
change, latex.efmt gets regenerated instead, as you can see in the
output. This is why I chose the fix I chose. Had I correctly
included the dependency, it would not have broken with older tetex
because it would have forced an upgrade of tetex at the same time.
Perhaps a suitable conflicts in tetex and a suitable requires here
would make my previous patch correct. (This isn't to say that the
changes may not have been wrong for other reasons; that's between you
and the tetex people.)

Based on other discussions, I haven't made an effort to try to combine
this with another bug. Feel free (of course) to merge it with
something if you feel this is appropriate, or to clone it and assign
the clone to tetex-bin.

I hope this bug report will be more useful to you. Thanks for your
patience!

--
Jay Berkenbilt <email address hidden>
http://www.ql.org/q/

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.26-1-686-smp
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8

Versions of packages jadetex depends on:
ii debianutils 2.8.4 Miscellaneous utilities specific t
ii tetex-bin 2.0.2-17 The teTeX binary files
ii tetex-extra 2.0.2a-2 Additional library files of teTeX

-- no debconf information

--qmime=_-20040811-165623-5249-14585-
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="jadetex-pbuilder-log"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

soup[1]% sudo pbuilder login
Building the build Environment
 -> extracting base tarball [/var/cache/pbuilder/base.tgz]
 -> creating local configuration
 -> copying local configuration
 -> mounting /proc filesystem
 -> mounting /dev/pts filesystem
 -> policy-rc.d already exists
 -> entering the shell
File extracted to: /u1/q/pbuilder/work/742

root@soup:/# apt-get install jadetex
Reading Package Lists... 0%Reading Package Lists... 0%Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... 0%Building Dependency Tree... 0%Building Dependency Tree... 1%Building Dependency Tree... 50%Build...

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 15:57:36 +0200
From: Andreas Metzler <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#253098: Maintainer upload 3.13-2 backed out fix from NMU,
 jadetex is again completely broken.

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 01:05:09PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <email address hidden> writes:
> > And jadetex is uninstallable again and will continue to break
> > autobuilding of any package build-depending e.g via docbook-utils on
> > jadetex.

> Ok, I understand. I think it works for me because I'm upgrading from
> a previous tex.

> I've filed a new grave bug for this. It's a completely unrelated
> installation problem from the original report. Any followup to this
> bug, please put on bug 265078.
[...]

I've just verified that tetex-bin 2.0.2-18[1] seems[2] to fix this issue,
jadetex is indeed installable with this version of tetex.

Therefore the only thing missing to declare this fixed is to make
jadetex conflict with tetex-bin (= 2.0.2-17).
            cu andreas

PS: How about merging these three identical bug-reports?

[1] in incoming:
* Don't revert the TeX - e-TeX migration but build the formats latex.fmt
  and pdflatex.fmt too, as they are needed in rare cases. [kohda]
  (Closes: #263296, #264043)

[2] I've installed and configured it, and built gnobog, which uses
docbook-utils.

This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 7326.

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:58:11 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: jadetex vs etex

--/qIPZgKzMPM+y5U5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

merge 265078 265129 265484
tags 265078 sarge-ignore
thanks

These bugs appear to be identical, and according to Andreas Metzler's
analysis, the problem only occurs with a particular unreleased version
of tetex-bin; I'm therefore merging the bugs and tagging them
sarge-ignore.

If there's any reason that the current jadetex should need to conflict
with older, *released* versions of tetex-bin, please remove the
sarge-ignore tag.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--/qIPZgKzMPM+y5U5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBMt4PKN6ufymYLloRAk31AKC0e3IigUcNIKM9KBaUDR44NqCemQCffoKO
HOJkoGeLcQ+ZCpD9qvKp+rw=
=lnUF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/qIPZgKzMPM+y5U5--

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:22:50 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: jadetex vs etex

--vk/v8fjDPiDepTtA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

severity 266630 grave
tags 265078 -sarge-ignore
merge 266630 265078
thanks

Ok, and 266630 seems to be the necessary justification for not ignoring
this bug (though it's been hidden in a control message...).

I am preparing an NMU based on the patch provided in the BTS.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--vk/v8fjDPiDepTtA
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBMuPWKN6ufymYLloRAtLuAKDFeh9SnBsjqOIoME1wrKxNx65CBACgv9ek
oRAnHMDKmrHBZPdqGZr9Oe0=
=cquK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--vk/v8fjDPiDepTtA--

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 01:54:05 -0700
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: (last time, really)

--KSyhVCl2eeZHT0Rn
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

unmerge 266630
tags 265078 sarge-ignore
thanks

On closer inspection, 266630 is not the same bug as 265078; the former
is about a conflicts with tetex-base, the later about a conflict with a
particular version of tetex-bin.

It is the former bug that I will be NMUing to address.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--KSyhVCl2eeZHT0Rn
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBMuspKN6ufymYLloRAnenAJ4zj9IPAa32MagCIOra/1H7p6ylUACgojpR
1kp9e7OiGZGhJCgLWzVae1I=
=y5X0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--KSyhVCl2eeZHT0Rn--

*** Bug 8580 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:59:34 -0500
From: Jay Berkenbilt <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: jadetex no longer fails to install with pbuilder

Just doing some housekeeping on old bugs I reported.... The current
jadetex builds fine with pbuilder and also installs without a
problem. I am therefore closing this bug.

--
Jay Berkenbilt <email address hidden>
http://www.ql.org/q/