tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

[Debian Bug Importer]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #267413 http://bugs.debian.org/267413

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #267413 http://bugs.debian.org/267413

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 15:10:14 +0200
From: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <email address hidden>
Subject: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Package: tetex-bin
Version: 2.0.2-19
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

zope fails to build from source on sparc,ia64 because of a problem in
computing zope-policy.sgml

debiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml

sparc:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3Dsparc=
&stamp=3D1093178464&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw

ia64:
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3Dia64&=
stamp=3D1093177931&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw

Can you please fix this anonying issue ?

Cheers,
--=20
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5
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)

iD8DBQFBKJs2s6AtZiNwb4cRAlHMAKCjXj5B+S+7+mxI5Y6uFFLdf6ag2wCgzfLE
XiN8sAHC4nk67h96OVcBsNA=
=lcOL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5--

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:

> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 2.0.2-19
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> zope fails to build from source on sparc,ia64 because of a problem in
> computing zope-policy.sgml
>
> debiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml
>
> sparc:
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zope&ver=2.6.4-1.2&arch=sparc&stamp=1093178464&file=log&as=raw
>
> ia64:
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zope&ver=2.6.4-1.2&arch=ia64&stamp=1093177931&file=log&as=raw
>
> Can you please fix this anonying issue ?

I cannot reproduce it here, on i386 (but that can hardly be the cause)
and with an older debiandoc2sgml. Is this reproducible anywhere, or does
one have to log into the buildds (and how can this be done)? Did you
check whether this is in fact a problem with tetex-bin, not with
debiandoc-sgml?

--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[migus (pierre)]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:14:23PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> > Package: tetex-bin
> > Version: 2.0.2-19
> > Severity: grave
> > Justification: renders package unusable
> >
> > zope fails to build from source on sparc,ia64 because of a problem in
> > computing zope-policy.sgml
> >
> > debiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml
> >
> > sparc:
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zope&ver=2.6.4-1.2&arch=sparc&stamp=1093178464&file=log&as=raw
> >
> > ia64:
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zope&ver=2.6.4-1.2&arch=ia64&stamp=1093177931&file=log&as=raw
> >
> > Can you please fix this anonying issue ?
>
> I cannot reproduce it here, on i386 (but that can hardly be the cause)
> and with an older debiandoc2sgml. Is this reproducible anywhere, or does
> one have to log into the buildds (and how can this be done)?

use merulo.debian.org (to log into the sid chroot: dchroot sid)
If you want to reproduce it and help me building zope
Add /home/pmachard/bin/ to your $PATH (It is txt2man).

If you simply want to debug it. Catch the file zope-policy.sgml in zope
package, and run debiandoc2ps on it.

> Did you
> check whether this is in fact a problem with tetex-bin, not with
> debiandoc-sgml?

I am sure it does not come from debiadoc-sgml. If I build it by hand, I
succed when running elatex and failed when running latex.

Log into merulo. The sid chroot has been updated today. The only tweak
to have zope buildable is to install txt2html manualy.

Anyway in attachement you can find the full typescript.

Cheers,
--
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:14:23 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:

> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 2.0.2-19
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
> zope fails to build from source on sparc,ia64 because of a problem in
> computing zope-policy.sgml
>
> debiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml
>
> sparc:
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3Dspa=
rc&stamp=3D1093178464&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw
>
> ia64:
> http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3Dia6=
4&stamp=3D1093177931&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw
>
> Can you please fix this anonying issue ?

I cannot reproduce it here, on i386 (but that can hardly be the cause)
and with an older debiandoc2sgml. Is this reproducible anywhere, or does
one have to log into the buildds (and how can this be done)? Did you
check whether this is in fact a problem with tetex-bin, not with
debiandoc-sgml?

--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:42:45 +0200
From: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
To: Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

--1SQmhf2mF2YjsYvc
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="9zSXsLTf0vkW971A"
Content-Disposition: inline

--9zSXsLTf0vkW971A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:14:23PM +0200, Frank K=FCster wrote:
> Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:
>=20
> > Package: tetex-bin
> > Version: 2.0.2-19
> > Severity: grave
> > Justification: renders package unusable
> >
> > zope fails to build from source on sparc,ia64 because of a problem in
> > computing zope-policy.sgml
> >
> > debiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml
> >
> > sparc:
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3Ds=
parc&stamp=3D1093178464&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw
> >
> > ia64:
> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3Di=
a64&stamp=3D1093177931&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw
> >
> > Can you please fix this anonying issue ?
>=20
> I cannot reproduce it here, on i386 (but that can hardly be the cause)
> and with an older debiandoc2sgml. Is this reproducible anywhere, or does
> one have to log into the buildds (and how can this be done)?=20

use merulo.debian.org (to log into the sid chroot: dchroot sid)
If you want to reproduce it and help me building zope=20
Add /home/pmachard/bin/ to your $PATH (It is txt2man).

If you simply want to debug it. Catch the file zope-policy.sgml in zope
package, and run debiandoc2ps on it.

> Did you
> check whether this is in fact a problem with tetex-bin, not with
> debiandoc-sgml?

I am sure it does not come from debiadoc-sgml. If I build it by hand, I
succed when running elatex and failed when running latex.

Log into merulo. The sid chroot has been updated today. The only tweak
to have zope buildable is to install txt2html manualy.

Anyway in attachement you can find the full typescript.

Cheers,
--=20
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

--9zSXsLTf0vkW971A
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=typescript
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Script started on Sun Aug 22 21:30:15 2004
=0D=1B[0m=1B[27m=1B[24m=1B[Jmerulo% =1B[Kd=08dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -=
d=0D=0D
dpkg-buildpackage: source package is zope=0D
dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 2.6.4-1.2=0D
dpkg-buildpackage: source maintainer is Pierre Machard <<email address hidden>=
>=0D
dpkg-buildpackage: host architecture is ia64=0D
 fakeroot debian/rules clean=0D
dh_testdir=0D
dh_testroot=0D
python2.2 setup.py --quiet clean --all=0D
warning: clean: 'build/temp.linux-ia64-2.2' does not exist -- can't clean i=
t=0D
warning: clean: 'build/lib.linux-ia64-2.2' does not exist -- can't clean it=
=0D
warning: clean: 'build/bdist.linux-ia64' does not exist -- can't clean i...

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

Short notes the debian-admin:

- Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", you
  might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.

- You should do some dpkg-reconfigure'ing, at least on merulo, because
  of changes in debconf defaults introduced long ago. A detailed
  description of what should be done is at the end, below "3. Detailed
  description what debian-admin should do". The rationale why I think
  this is the right thing to do comes first.

Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:14:23PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>> Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:
>>
>> > Package: tetex-bin
>> > Version: 2.0.2-19
>> > Severity: grave
>> > Justification: renders package unusable
>> >
>> > zope fails to build from source on sparc,ia64 because of a problem in
>> > computing zope-policy.sgml
>> >
>> > debiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml
>> >
>> > sparc:
>> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zope&ver=2.6.4-1.2&arch=sparc&stamp=1093178464&file=log&as=raw
>> >
>> > ia64:
>> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zope&ver=2.6.4-1.2&arch=ia64&stamp=1093177931&file=log&as=raw
>> >
>> > Can you please fix this anonying issue ?
>>
>> I cannot reproduce it here, on i386 (but that can hardly be the cause)
>> and with an older debiandoc2sgml. Is this reproducible anywhere, or does
>> one have to log into the buildds (and how can this be done)?
>
> use merulo.debian.org (to log into the sid chroot: dchroot sid)
> If you want to reproduce it and help me building zope
> Add /home/pmachard/bin/ to your $PATH (It is txt2man).

Thank you, trying on merulo helped me find the cause (there!).

> If you simply want to debug it. Catch the file zope-policy.sgml in zope
> package, and run debiandoc2ps on it.

Well, I found out what the cause on merulo is. However, I can still not
imagine how this could happen on a buildd, where tetex-bin should always
be purged after a build, isn't it?

1. Comments and explanations regarding the situation on merulo

On merulo, I get:

frank@merulo:~$ debconf-show tetex-bin
debconf: DbDriver "passwords" warning: could not open /var/cache/debconf/passwords.dat: Permission denied
  tetex-bin/updmap-failed:
  tetex-bin/hyphen: ngerman[=naustrian-neue_Rechtschreibung], french[=patois]
  tetex-bin/oldcfg: true
* tetex-bin/upd_map: false
* tetex-bin/cnf_name:
* tetex-bin/fmtutil: false
* tetex-bin/use_debconf: true
  tetex-bin/fmtutil-failed:
  tetex-bin/groupname: users
  tetex-bin/userperm: false
  tetex-bin/groupperm: true
* tetex-bin/lsr-perms: true
* tetex-bin/texmf: false
frank@merulo:~$

The debconf defaults of tetex-bin have changed over a year ago, and one
other a couple of weeks ago. Specifically,
tetex-bin/{upd_map,fmtutil,texmf} are true by default since 2.0.2-4.2 in
Jun 03 (but texmf has gone, meanwhile), and tetex-bin/use_debconf is
false since 2.0.2-17.

The first change is documented well in changelog.Debian, the second in
NEWS.Debian. We have considered that it would be a debconf abuse to set
all the changed questions to unseen again, annoying people, and doubling
the information that is yet in the changelog (or NEWS.Debian). Ever...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:58:19 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

Short notes the debian-admin:=20

- Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", you
  might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.

- You should do some dpkg-reconfigure'ing, at least on merulo, because
  of changes in debconf defaults introduced long ago. A detailed
  description of what should be done is at the end, below "3. Detailed
  description what debian-admin should do". The rationale why I think
  this is the right thing to do comes first.

Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 11:14:23PM +0200, Frank K=FCster wrote:
>> Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:
>>=20
>> > Package: tetex-bin
>> > Version: 2.0.2-19
>> > Severity: grave
>> > Justification: renders package unusable
>> >
>> > zope fails to build from source on sparc,ia64 because of a problem in
>> > computing zope-policy.sgml
>> >
>> > debiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml
>> >
>> > sparc:
>> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3D=
sparc&stamp=3D1093178464&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw
>> >
>> > ia64:
>> > http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3D=
ia64&stamp=3D1093177931&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw
>> >
>> > Can you please fix this anonying issue ?
>>=20
>> I cannot reproduce it here, on i386 (but that can hardly be the cause)
>> and with an older debiandoc2sgml. Is this reproducible anywhere, or does
>> one have to log into the buildds (and how can this be done)?=20
>
> use merulo.debian.org (to log into the sid chroot: dchroot sid)
> If you want to reproduce it and help me building zope=20
> Add /home/pmachard/bin/ to your $PATH (It is txt2man).

Thank you, trying on merulo helped me find the cause (there!).

> If you simply want to debug it. Catch the file zope-policy.sgml in zope
> package, and run debiandoc2ps on it.

Well, I found out what the cause on merulo is. However, I can still not
imagine how this could happen on a buildd, where tetex-bin should always
be purged after a build, isn't it?

1. Comments and explanations regarding the situation on merulo

On merulo, I get:

frank@merulo:~$ debconf-show tetex-bin
debconf: DbDriver "passwords" warning: could not open /var/cache/debconf/pa=
sswords.dat: Permission denied
  tetex-bin/updmap-failed:
  tetex-bin/hyphen: ngerman[=3Dnaustrian-neue_Rechtschreibung], french[=3Dp=
atois]
  tetex-bin/oldcfg: true
* tetex-bin/upd_map: false
* tetex-bin/cnf_name:
* tetex-bin/fmtutil: false
* tetex-bin/use_debconf: true
  tetex-bin/fmtutil-failed:
  tetex-bin/groupname: users
  tetex-bin/userperm: false
  tetex-bin/groupperm: true
* tetex-bin/lsr-perms: true
* tetex-bin/texmf: false
frank@merulo:~$

The debconf defaults of tetex-bin have changed over a year ago, and one
other a couple of weeks ago. Specifically,
tetex-bin/{upd_map,fmtutil,texmf} are true by default since 2.0.2-4.2 in
Jun 03 (but texmf ha...

[Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei)]

Hi Ardo,

we have a strange bug report here about zope FTBFS'ing because of a
problem when debiandoc2ps calls latex. The original submitter has judged
that this is a bug in tetex-bin, and indeed when logging into the dchroot
on merulo.debian.org, one gets exactly the same error messages as in the
build log.

On merulo, however, I could pin down the problem to a change in the
default debconf settings of tetex-bin long ago, that have not been
accepted by the dchroot admins; when tetex-bin is installed from
scratch, the same error cannot occur.

There _is_ some error on the buildd's, however, and I do not know why.

Did you have any similar complaints? Any idea? The bug logs are at

http://bugs.debian.org/267413, with links to the buildd's logs in the
first mail

Thanks in advance, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[migus (pierre)]

Hello,

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:58:19AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Short notes the debian-admin:
>
> - Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", you
> might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.
>
> - You should do some dpkg-reconfigure'ing, at least on merulo, because
> of changes in debconf defaults introduced long ago. A detailed
> description of what should be done is at the end, below "3. Detailed
> description what debian-admin should do". The rationale why I think
> this is the right thing to do comes first.
>
[...]
> The first change is documented well in changelog.Debian, the second in
> NEWS.Debian. We have considered that it would be a debconf abuse to set
> all the changed questions to unseen again, annoying people, and doubling
> the information that is yet in the changelog (or NEWS.Debian). Every
> user running unstable is always told that he knows what he's doing, and
> should follow development somehow - or at least read changelogs and
> NEWS.Debian, and I fear this also applies to debian-admin.

I's unbeliveable to read such a statement. What about users who will
upgrade from woody ? It's your job to deal with that, not the
debian-admin or any user running sarge, sid or whatever.

Please read the Debian policy carefully:

E.5: Fully-featured maintainer script configuration handling

If you discover a bug in the program which generates the configuration
file, or if the format of the file changes from one version to the next,
you will have to arrange for the postinst script to do something
sensible - usually this will mean editing the installed configuration
file to remove the problem or change the syntax. You will have to do
this very carefully, since the user may have changed the file, perhaps
to fix the very problem that your script is trying to deal with - you
will have to detect these situations and deal with them correctly.

Cheers,
--
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

@debian-admin: Are there any machines accessible to developers where I
can use sbuild to mimick the buildd environment?

@Pierre: After trying to justify us to some extent, there are some
questions to you - there answers are needed to fix the zope issue.

Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:

>> The first change is documented well in changelog.Debian, the second in
>> NEWS.Debian. We have considered that it would be a debconf abuse to set
>> all the changed questions to unseen again, annoying people, and doubling
>> the information that is yet in the changelog (or NEWS.Debian). Every
>> user running unstable is always told that he knows what he's doing, and
>> should follow development somehow - or at least read changelogs and
>> NEWS.Debian, and I fear this also applies to debian-admin.
>
> I's unbeliveable to read such a statement. What about users who will
> upgrade from woody ?

Users upgrading from woody will not encounter problems. There were no
debconf questions in woody, therefore there is nothing that has changed
- for them it will be like a install after a purge, debconf-wise.

> It's your job to deal with that, not the
> debian-admin or any user running sarge, sid or whatever.
>
> Please read the Debian policy carefully:
>
> E.5: Fully-featured maintainer script configuration handling
>
> If you discover a bug in the program which generates the configuration
> file, or if the format of the file changes from one version to the next,
> you will have to arrange for the postinst script to do something
> sensible - usually this will mean editing the installed configuration
> file to remove the problem or change the syntax. You will have to do
> this very carefully, since the user may have changed the file, perhaps
> to fix the very problem that your script is trying to deal with - you
> will have to detect these situations and deal with them correctly.

I must say that I do not know the circumstances of the change that
happened then - I was not active on the tetex maintainers' list, and not
a Debian developer, anyway, back then.

But it might be that people made mistakes with that change; I think
the mechanisms activated by those questions were first introduced as a
test for the bold and brave, and later it was decided that it was good
enough for everybody.

When I got acquainted to the packaging of tetex-*, I didn't even know
about that change (just learned it today), and had no idea on the
impact. And we never had any complaints about that, since about 12
months in which I have been closely following tetex's development.

I still fear that people will as well complain if we set the questions
to unseen, and say we abuse debconf. Under normal circumstances, I would
raise this question on debian-devel. This is not normal, both zope and
tetex-bin should try to enter sarge. Therefore I would agree to upload a
new version that shows those questions again, with the new defaults.

The problem is that I am quite sure this will *not* fix the problem for
zope, because on the buildd's tetex-bin is always purged, anyway. I am
currently investigating this in an sbuild environment on i386.

Pierre, which version of tetex-bin did you use fo...

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:46:12 +0200
From: <email address hidden> (=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?=)
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Problems with tetex-bin and debiandoc2*

Hi Ardo,

we have a strange bug report here about zope FTBFS'ing because of a
problem when debiandoc2ps calls latex. The original submitter has judged
that this is a bug in tetex-bin, and indeed when logging into the dchroot
on merulo.debian.org, one gets exactly the same error messages as in the
build log.

On merulo, however, I could pin down the problem to a change in the
default debconf settings of tetex-bin long ago, that have not been
accepted by the dchroot admins; when tetex-bin is installed from
scratch, the same error cannot occur.

There _is_ some error on the buildd's, however, and I do not know why.

Did you have any similar complaints? Any idea? The bug logs are at=20

http://bugs.debian.org/267413, with links to the buildd's logs in the
first mail

Thanks in advance, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:58:26 +0200
From: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
To: Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

--5p8PegU4iirBW1oA
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 10:58:19AM +0200, Frank K=FCster wrote:
> Short notes the debian-admin:=20
>=20
> - Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", you
> might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.
>=20
> - You should do some dpkg-reconfigure'ing, at least on merulo, because
> of changes in debconf defaults introduced long ago. A detailed
> description of what should be done is at the end, below "3. Detailed
> description what debian-admin should do". The rationale why I think
> this is the right thing to do comes first.
>=20
[...]
> The first change is documented well in changelog.Debian, the second in
> NEWS.Debian. We have considered that it would be a debconf abuse to set
> all the changed questions to unseen again, annoying people, and doubling
> the information that is yet in the changelog (or NEWS.Debian). Every
> user running unstable is always told that he knows what he's doing, and
> should follow development somehow - or at least read changelogs and
> NEWS.Debian, and I fear this also applies to debian-admin.

I's unbeliveable to read such a statement. What about users who will
upgrade from woody ? It's your job to deal with that, not the
debian-admin or any user running sarge, sid or whatever.

Please read the Debian policy carefully:

E.5: Fully-featured maintainer script configuration handling

If you discover a bug in the program which generates the configuration
file, or if the format of the file changes from one version to the next,
you will have to arrange for the postinst script to do something
sensible - usually this will mean editing the installed configuration
file to remove the problem or change the syntax. You will have to do
this very carefully, since the user may have changed the file, perhaps
to fix the very problem that your script is trying to deal with - you
will have to detect these situations and deal with them correctly.

Cheers,
--=20
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

--5p8PegU4iirBW1oA
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)

iD8DBQFBKdvis6AtZiNwb4cRArZnAKC0tpyQdTTH4aApBZbfzRn0Hrd7CgCg2q3h
E4CjaPge5v47X3eHqKrl94E=
=4MpW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--5p8PegU4iirBW1oA--

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 14:52:43 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

@debian-admin: Are there any machines accessible to developers where I
can use sbuild to mimick the buildd environment?

@Pierre: After trying to justify us to some extent, there are some
questions to you - there answers are needed to fix the zope issue.

Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:

>> The first change is documented well in changelog.Debian, the second in
>> NEWS.Debian. We have considered that it would be a debconf abuse to set
>> all the changed questions to unseen again, annoying people, and doubling
>> the information that is yet in the changelog (or NEWS.Debian). Every
>> user running unstable is always told that he knows what he's doing, and
>> should follow development somehow - or at least read changelogs and
>> NEWS.Debian, and I fear this also applies to debian-admin.
>
> I's unbeliveable to read such a statement. What about users who will
> upgrade from woody ?=20

Users upgrading from woody will not encounter problems. There were no
debconf questions in woody, therefore there is nothing that has changed
- for them it will be like a install after a purge, debconf-wise.

> It's your job to deal with that, not the
> debian-admin or any user running sarge, sid or whatever.
>
> Please read the Debian policy carefully:
>
> E.5: Fully-featured maintainer script configuration handling
>
> If you discover a bug in the program which generates the configuration
> file, or if the format of the file changes from one version to the next,
> you will have to arrange for the postinst script to do something
> sensible - usually this will mean editing the installed configuration
> file to remove the problem or change the syntax. You will have to do
> this very carefully, since the user may have changed the file, perhaps
> to fix the very problem that your script is trying to deal with - you
> will have to detect these situations and deal with them correctly.

I must say that I do not know the circumstances of the change that
happened then - I was not active on the tetex maintainers' list, and not
a Debian developer, anyway, back then.

But it might be that people made mistakes with that change; I think
the mechanisms activated by those questions were first introduced as a
test for the bold and brave, and later it was decided that it was good
enough for everybody.

When I got acquainted to the packaging of tetex-*, I didn't even know
about that change (just learned it today), and had no idea on the
impact. And we never had any complaints about that, since about 12
months in which I have been closely following tetex's development.=20

I still fear that people will as well complain if we set the questions
to unseen, and say we abuse debconf. Under normal circumstances, I would
raise this question on debian-devel. This is not normal, both zope and
tetex-bin should try to enter sarge. Therefore I would agree to upload a
new version tha...

[Martin Schulze (joey-infodrom)]

Frank Küster wrote:
> Short notes the debian-admin:
>
> - Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", you
> might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.

Debian-admin does not manage the buildds, you'll have to talk to the particular
buildd admins

> - You should do some dpkg-reconfigure'ing, at least on merulo, because
> of changes in debconf defaults introduced long ago. A detailed
> description of what should be done is at the end, below "3. Detailed
> description what debian-admin should do". The rationale why I think
> this is the right thing to do comes first.
>
>
> To accept the changed debconf defaults, "dpkg-reconfigure tetex-bin"
> should be run, and the following choices made:
>
> Question:
> Use update-fmtutil to automatically generate fmtutil.cnf?
> Answer: YES
>
> Question:
> Use update-updmap to automatically generate updmap.cfg?
> Answer: YES
>
> Question:
> Manage language.dat with debconf?
> Answer: NO

Done in the unstable chroot.

>
> In addition to the last change, the NO answer, you need to follow the
> advice in NEWS.Debian:
>
> ,----
> | If you have previously used debconf management for language.dat, you
> | can continue doing so. If you want to get back to the new default, the
> | best way is to copy /usr/share/tetex-base/language.dflt to
> | /etc/texmf/language.dat, "dpkg-reconfigure tetex-bin" and chose not to
> | manage this file by debconf.
> `----

Copied afterwards, since the text came after your debconf request. Hope
that's fine as well.

Regards,

 Joey

--
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it! -- Mark Twain

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

Martin Schulze <email address hidden> wrote:

> Frank Küster wrote:
>> Short notes the debian-admin:
>>
>> - Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", you
>> might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.
>
> Debian-admin does not manage the buildds, you'll have to talk to the particular
> buildd admins

Ah, I didn't know that. How can I find out who's the responsible admin
for, say, caballero's buildd?

>> In addition to the last change, the NO answer, you need to follow the
>> advice in NEWS.Debian:
>>
>> ,----
>> | If you have previously used debconf management for language.dat, you
>> | can continue doing so. If you want to get back to the new default, the
>> | best way is to copy /usr/share/tetex-base/language.dflt to
>> | /etc/texmf/language.dat, "dpkg-reconfigure tetex-bin" and chose not to
>> | manage this file by debconf.
>> `----
>
> Copied afterwards, since the text came after your debconf request. Hope
> that's fine as well.

Oh, that doesn't matter at all.

Regards, Frank

--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Martin Schulze (joey-infodrom)]

Frank Küster wrote:
> @debian-admin: Are there any machines accessible to developers where I
> can use sbuild to mimick the buildd environment?

I don't think so.

Could you continue the discussion on debian-tetex-main@ or debian-devel@
but not on debian-admin@? If the admin list gets flooded with non-admin
stuff you're implementing some sort of a DoS to us.

Regards,

 Joey

--
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it! -- Mark Twain

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

[Martin Schulze (joey-infodrom)]

Frank Küster wrote:
> Martin Schulze <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> > Frank Küster wrote:
> >> Short notes the debian-admin:
> >>
> >> - Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", you
> >> might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.
> >
> > Debian-admin does not manage the buildds, you'll have to talk to the particular
> > buildd admins
>
> Ah, I didn't know that. How can I find out who's the responsible admin
> for, say, caballero's buildd?

I seem to recall that $<email address hidden> should work.

For caballero the admin is James Troup.

Regards,

 Joey

--
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it! -- Mark Twain

[migus (pierre)]

[Removing debian-admin from Cc:]
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:52:43PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
[...]
> @Pierre: After trying to justify us to some extent, there are some
> questions to you - there answers are needed to fix the zope issue.
[...]
> > If you discover a bug in the program which generates the configuration
> > file, or if the format of the file changes from one version to the next,
> > you will have to arrange for the postinst script to do something
> > sensible - usually this will mean editing the installed configuration
> > file to remove the problem or change the syntax. You will have to do
> > this very carefully, since the user may have changed the file, perhaps
> > to fix the very problem that your script is trying to deal with - you
> > will have to detect these situations and deal with them correctly.
>
> I must say that I do not know the circumstances of the change that
> happened then - I was not active on the tetex maintainers' list, and not
> a Debian developer, anyway, back then.
>
> But it might be that people made mistakes with that change; I think
> the mechanisms activated by those questions were first introduced as a
> test for the bold and brave, and later it was decided that it was good
> enough for everybody.

Yes but in that case, find a conveniant way to repair broken
installations. In one of my package I manage to achive this by using

dpkg --compare-version

in package.preinst

if dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 3.9-2 ; then
blabla

if you know that previous package will be broken when updating, you
should be able to fix it and make the new package ready to work.

I understand your reasons, and I am happy to see that you are maintaing
tetex, I don't criticize it. However, what I would like to know if is
it impossible for you to fix system that will not work because previous
versions were broken ? As a developper and user of debian It's difficult
to believe that a broken behaviour cannot be fix with a new package.

[...]
> Pierre, which version of tetex-bin did you use for your build of
> zope_2.6.4-1.2_i386.deb? This is important, because the problems seem to
> be in fact architecture-independent.

It was 2.0.2-18. I will however reupload a new version of zope tonight.
I need to fix a postinst. I let you know if there is a problem building
your package. (I am using pbuilder to build my packages)

Cheers,
--
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:39:37 +0200
From: Martin Schulze <email address hidden>
To: Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
Cc: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

Frank K=FCster wrote:
> Short notes the debian-admin:=20
>=20
> - Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", yo=
u
> might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.

Debian-admin does not manage the buildds, you'll have to talk to the part=
icular
buildd admins

> - You should do some dpkg-reconfigure'ing, at least on merulo, because
> of changes in debconf defaults introduced long ago. A detailed
> description of what should be done is at the end, below "3. Detailed
> description what debian-admin should do". The rationale why I think
> this is the right thing to do comes first.
>=20
>=20
> To accept the changed debconf defaults, "dpkg-reconfigure tetex-bin"
> should be run, and the following choices made:
>=20
> Question:
> Use update-fmtutil to automatically generate fmtutil.cnf?
> Answer: YES
>=20
> Question:
> Use update-updmap to automatically generate updmap.cfg?
> Answer: YES
>=20
> Question:
> Manage language.dat with debconf?
> Answer: NO

Done in the unstable chroot.

>=20
> In addition to the last change, the NO answer, you need to follow the
> advice in NEWS.Debian:
>=20
> ,----
> | If you have previously used debconf management for language.dat, you
> | can continue doing so. If you want to get back to the new default, th=
e
> | best way is to copy /usr/share/tetex-base/language.dflt to
> | /etc/texmf/language.dat, "dpkg-reconfigure tetex-bin" and chose not t=
o
> | manage this file by debconf.
> `----

Copied afterwards, since the text came after your debconf request. Hope
that's fine as well.

Regards,

 Joey

--=20
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it! -- Mark Twa=
in

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 17:58:53 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: Martin Schulze <email address hidden>
Cc: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
        <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

Martin Schulze <email address hidden> wrote:

> Frank K=FCster wrote:
>> Short notes the debian-admin:=20
>>=20
>> - Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds", you
>> might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.
>
> Debian-admin does not manage the buildds, you'll have to talk to the part=
icular
> buildd admins

Ah, I didn't know that. How can I find out who's the responsible admin
for, say, caballero's buildd?

>> In addition to the last change, the NO answer, you need to follow the
>> advice in NEWS.Debian:
>>=20
>> ,----
>> | If you have previously used debconf management for language.dat, you
>> | can continue doing so. If you want to get back to the new default, the
>> | best way is to copy /usr/share/tetex-base/language.dflt to
>> | /etc/texmf/language.dat, "dpkg-reconfigure tetex-bin" and chose not to
>> | manage this file by debconf.
>> `----
>
> Copied afterwards, since the text came after your debconf request. Hope
> that's fine as well.

Oh, that doesn't matter at all.

Regards, Frank

--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:02:35 +0200
From: Martin Schulze <email address hidden>
To: Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
Cc: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

Frank K=FCster wrote:
> @debian-admin: Are there any machines accessible to developers where I
> can use sbuild to mimick the buildd environment?

I don't think so.

Could you continue the discussion on debian-tetex-main@ or debian-devel@
but not on debian-admin@? If the admin list gets flooded with non-admin
stuff you're implementing some sort of a DoS to us.

Regards,

 Joey

--=20
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it! -- Mark Twa=
in

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:39:43 +0200
From: Martin Schulze <email address hidden>
To: Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
Cc: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>,
 <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

Frank K=FCster wrote:
> Martin Schulze <email address hidden> wrote:
>=20
> > Frank K=FCster wrote:
> >> Short notes the debian-admin:=20
> >>=20
> >> - Please read the section starting "2. What happens on the buildds",=
 you
> >> might be able to help in debugging, or to provide ressources.
> >
> > Debian-admin does not manage the buildds, you'll have to talk to the =
particular
> > buildd admins
>=20
> Ah, I didn't know that. How can I find out who's the responsible admin
> for, say, caballero's buildd?

I seem to recall that $<email address hidden> should work.

For caballero the admin is James Troup.

Regards,

 Joey

--=20
Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it! -- Mark Twa=
in

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:58:20 +0200
From: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
To: Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

--fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[Removing debian-admin from Cc:]
On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:52:43PM +0200, Frank K=FCster wrote:
[...]
> @Pierre: After trying to justify us to some extent, there are some
> questions to you - there answers are needed to fix the zope issue.
[...]
> > If you discover a bug in the program which generates the configuration
> > file, or if the format of the file changes from one version to the next,
> > you will have to arrange for the postinst script to do something
> > sensible - usually this will mean editing the installed configuration
> > file to remove the problem or change the syntax. You will have to do
> > this very carefully, since the user may have changed the file, perhaps
> > to fix the very problem that your script is trying to deal with - you
> > will have to detect these situations and deal with them correctly.
>=20
> I must say that I do not know the circumstances of the change that
> happened then - I was not active on the tetex maintainers' list, and not
> a Debian developer, anyway, back then.
>=20
> But it might be that people made mistakes with that change; I think
> the mechanisms activated by those questions were first introduced as a
> test for the bold and brave, and later it was decided that it was good
> enough for everybody.

Yes but in that case, find a conveniant way to repair broken
installations. In one of my package I manage to achive this by using

dpkg --compare-version

in package.preinst

if dpkg --compare-versions "$2" lt 3.9-2 ; then
blabla

if you know that previous package will be broken when updating, you
should be able to fix it and make the new package ready to work.

I understand your reasons, and I am happy to see that you are maintaing
tetex, I don't criticize it. However, what I would like to know if is
it impossible for you to fix system that will not work because previous
versions were broken ? As a developper and user of debian It's difficult
to believe that a broken behaviour cannot be fix with a new package.

[...]
> Pierre, which version of tetex-bin did you use for your build of
> zope_2.6.4-1.2_i386.deb? This is important, because the problems seem to
> be in fact architecture-independent.

It was 2.0.2-18. I will however reupload a new version of zope tonight.
I need to fix a postinst. I let you know if there is a problem building
your package. (I am using pbuilder to build my packages)

Cheers,
--=20
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

--fdj2RfSjLxBAspz7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v...

[Matt Zimmerman (mdz)]

Works fine on Warty as far as I am aware (tetex-bin works, zope builds).
Probably either arch-specific or version-specific.

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

clone 267413 -1
retitle -1 tetex-bin should cater for changed debconf defaults
severity -1 important
retitle 267413 strange debiandoc2ps failure
stop

Frank Küster <email address hidden> wrote:

> The problem is that I am quite sure this will *not* fix the problem for
> zope, because on the buildd's tetex-bin is always purged, anyway. I am
> currently investigating this in an sbuild environment on i386.

No problems to build with sbuild on i386. Furthermore, it is clear that
the problem with changed debconf defaults has nothing to do with the
FTBFS of zope - therefore I clone the bug, the zope issue is still grave.

This is why I know: When installing tetex-bin_2.0.2-19 with the "wrong"
settings discussed previously, i.e. with tetex-bin/fmtutil: false,
tetex-bin/upd_map: false, the output is as follows:

[...]
Creating config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf with new version
Generating /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf ...
Creating config file /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf with new version
done
Running initex. This may take some time. ...
[...]

on the buildd's, e.g. on caballero (ia64),

http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zope&ver=2.6.4-1.2&arch=ia64&stamp=1093177931&file=log&as=raw

it looks different, indicating that the debconf questions are at their
new default, and fmtutil.cnf and updmap.cfg are created files:

[...]
Creating config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf with new version
Generating /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf ...
Creating config file /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf with new version
done
Generating /var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf ... done
Regenerating /var/lib/texmf/web2c/updmap.cfg ... done
Running initex. This may take some time. ...
[...]

> Pierre, which version of tetex-bin did you use for your build of
> zope_2.6.4-1.2_i386.deb? This is important, because the problems seem to
> be in fact architecture-independent.

This does no longer seem important, because I could build it with
2.0.2-19.

I really don't see any possibility to debug this, except somehow causing
the failing buildd's to build the package with "-v".

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:

> Yes but in that case, find a conveniant way to repair broken
> installations.

I have implemented it, using a different approach,

db_fset/fget tetex-bin/$changed_question shown_again

in my local version here; but I see no sense in uploading it, because it
won't fix the zope issue.

> It was 2.0.2-18. I will however reupload a new version of zope tonight.
> I need to fix a postinst. I let you know if there is a problem building
> your package. (I am using pbuilder to build my packages)

You should have used the -v switch... Do you plan an other NMU? Do you
think it's acceptable to upload a "debugging version" - it will take the
autobuilders time, but hopefully help us track down the problem.

Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

Dear Martin, dear James,

I'm contacting you as buildd admin's (I don't know Martin's exact role,
Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi adviced me to contact you).

I'm trying to debug RC #267413, a FTBFS of zope assigned to tetex-bin,
and it seems that the problem is only triggered in some special
circumstances on a buildd: It is not reproducible in the unstable
chroots on merulo (ia64, one of the failing arches), a pbuilder
environment on i386, or an sbuild chroot I locally set up on i386.

But it reproducibly happens on the buildd's, on ia64, powerpc, hppa,
alpha, sparc, m86k, arm (but not on s390, i386 is not tried by a
buildd).

The actual error message is

ebiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml
debiandoc2ps: ERROR: zope-policy.ps could not be generated properly
debiandoc2ps: rerun with the -v option to found out why
make: *** [zope-policy.ps] Error 1

And the only way to debug this seems to be to follow this advice: run
debiandoc2ps -v zope-policy.sgml.

I do not want to upload (NMU) the package just to introduce that switch,
and have all buildd's try it again, mostly in vain of course, just to
allow me to actually fix it. Is there any possibility that I get a
buildd of one of the failing arches just for trying to build a minimal
version of this zope package, that only contains this step? Or is there
any other way to execute such a command after installing the necessary
dependencies in a buildd environment?

Many thanks in advance, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 18:55:10 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

clone 267413 -1
retitle -1 tetex-bin should cater for changed debconf defaults
severity -1 important
retitle 267413 strange debiandoc2ps failure=20
stop

Frank K=FCster <email address hidden> wrote:

> The problem is that I am quite sure this will *not* fix the problem for
> zope, because on the buildd's tetex-bin is always purged, anyway. I am
> currently investigating this in an sbuild environment on i386.

No problems to build with sbuild on i386. Furthermore, it is clear that
the problem with changed debconf defaults has nothing to do with the
FTBFS of zope - therefore I clone the bug, the zope issue is still grave.

This is why I know: When installing tetex-bin_2.0.2-19 with the "wrong"
settings discussed previously, i.e. with tetex-bin/fmtutil: false,
tetex-bin/upd_map: false, the output is as follows:

[...]
Creating config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf with new version
Generating /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf ...=20
Creating config file /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf with new version
done
Running initex. This may take some time. ...
[...]

on the buildd's, e.g. on caballero (ia64),

http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.2&arch=3Dia64&=
stamp=3D1093177931&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw

it looks different, indicating that the debconf questions are at their
new default, and fmtutil.cnf and updmap.cfg are created files:

[...]
Creating config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf with new version
Generating /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf ...=20
Creating config file /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf with new version
done
Generating /var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf ... done
Regenerating /var/lib/texmf/web2c/updmap.cfg ... done
Running initex. This may take some time. ...
[...]

> Pierre, which version of tetex-bin did you use for your build of
> zope_2.6.4-1.2_i386.deb? This is important, because the problems seem to
> be in fact architecture-independent.

This does no longer seem important, because I could build it with
2.0.2-19.

I really don't see any possibility to debug this, except somehow causing
the failing buildd's to build the package with "-v".=20

Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:28:25 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:

> Yes but in that case, find a conveniant way to repair broken
> installations.=20

I have implemented it, using a different approach,=20

db_fset/fget tetex-bin/$changed_question shown_again

in my local version here; but I see no sense in uploading it, because it
won't fix the zope issue.

> It was 2.0.2-18. I will however reupload a new version of zope tonight.
> I need to fix a postinst. I let you know if there is a problem building
> your package. (I am using pbuilder to build my packages)

You should have used the -v switch... Do you plan an other NMU? Do you
think it's acceptable to upload a "debugging version" - it will take the
autobuilders time, but hopefully help us track down the problem.

Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

Frank Küster <email address hidden> wrote:

> But it reproducibly happens on the buildd's, on ia64

specifically, it was caballero, which is why I contact you, James.

Bye, Frank

--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:43:34 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: James Troup <email address hidden>, Martin Loschwitz <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Running a debugging command on a buildd?

Dear Martin, dear James,

I'm contacting you as buildd admin's (I don't know Martin's exact role,
Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi adviced me to contact you).

I'm trying to debug RC #267413, a FTBFS of zope assigned to tetex-bin,
and it seems that the problem is only triggered in some special
circumstances on a buildd: It is not reproducible in the unstable
chroots on merulo (ia64, one of the failing arches), a pbuilder
environment on i386, or an sbuild chroot I locally set up on i386.=20

But it reproducibly happens on the buildd's, on ia64, powerpc, hppa,
alpha, sparc, m86k, arm (but not on s390, i386 is not tried by a
buildd).

The actual error message is=20

ebiandoc2ps debian/doc/zope-policy.sgml
debiandoc2ps: ERROR: zope-policy.ps could not be generated properly
debiandoc2ps: rerun with the -v option to found out why
make: *** [zope-policy.ps] Error 1

And the only way to debug this seems to be to follow this advice: run
debiandoc2ps -v zope-policy.sgml.

I do not want to upload (NMU) the package just to introduce that switch,
and have all buildd's try it again, mostly in vain of course, just to
allow me to actually fix it. Is there any possibility that I get a
buildd of one of the failing arches just for trying to build a minimal
version of this zope package, that only contains this step? Or is there
any other way to execute such a command after installing the necessary
dependencies in a buildd environment?

Many thanks in advance, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:13:42 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: James Troup <email address hidden>, Martin Loschwitz <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: Running a debugging command on a buildd?

Frank K=FCster <email address hidden> wrote:

> But it reproducibly happens on the buildd's, on ia64

specifically, it was caballero, which is why I contact you, James.

Bye, Frank

--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Thaddeus H. Black (t-b-tk)]

> Well, yes, but all you did was some postinst stuff (it seems to
> indirectly create a new user?) and python stuff. I cannot imagine this
> influences debiandoc2ps...

I cannot imagine that it influences debiandoc2ps either, nor do I find
any evidence that it does. The password issue and the debiandoc2ps
issue do appear to be separate issues, as you have said.

> Martin Loschwitz has mailed to me that he will try some debugging runs
> on a build.

Thanks Frank. This is appreciated. I do not understand the
debiandoc2ps bug. In fact I have been unable to reproduce it.

(Remarks on the apparently unrelated password bug shall soon follow in a
separate message, copied to a different bug log, #251038.)

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:47:29 +0000
From: "Thaddeus H. Black" <email address hidden>
To: Frank K?ster <email address hidden>
Cc: Laszlo 'GCS' Boszormenyi <email address hidden>,
 Pierre Machard <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Help needed with FTBFS bug 267413 - buildd problem?

--JP+T4n/bALQSJXh8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

> Well, yes, but all you did was some postinst stuff (it seems to
> indirectly create a new user?) and python stuff. I cannot imagine this
> influences debiandoc2ps...

I cannot imagine that it influences debiandoc2ps either, nor do I find
any evidence that it does. The password issue and the debiandoc2ps
issue do appear to be separate issues, as you have said.

> Martin Loschwitz has mailed to me that he will try some debugging runs
> on a build.

Thanks Frank. This is appreciated. I do not understand the
debiandoc2ps bug. In fact I have been unable to reproduce it.

(Remarks on the apparently unrelated password bug shall soon follow in a
separate message, copied to a different bug log, #251038.)

--JP+T4n/bALQSJXh8
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkErcSEACgkQh3E0gzgBXn73RQCg34iNNLWDbDD24UjhjyaEDzSU
/zMAn1P1RIgWeZZHptVDJK7a3kK2I3Cw
=WeZO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--JP+T4n/bALQSJXh8--

[migus (pierre)]

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:28:25AM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:
>
> > Yes but in that case, find a conveniant way to repair broken
> > installations.
>
> I have implemented it, using a different approach,
>
> db_fset/fget tetex-bin/$changed_question shown_again
>
> in my local version here; but I see no sense in uploading it, because it
> won't fix the zope issue.
>
> > It was 2.0.2-18. I will however reupload a new version of zope tonight.
> > I need to fix a postinst. I let you know if there is a problem building
> > your package. (I am using pbuilder to build my packages)
>
> You should have used the -v switch... Do you plan an other NMU? Do you
> think it's acceptable to upload a "debugging version" - it will take the
> autobuilders time, but hopefully help us track down the problem.

I've uploaded a new package last night to add the -v switch.

Cheers,
--
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

severity 267896 grave
merge 267413 267896
stop

Kai Weber <email address hidden> wrote:

> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 2.0.2-19
> Severity: important
>
>
> I had to reinstall my system and now latex fails when creating a new font. A
> relevant mktextfm call from missfont.log:
>
> $ mktextfm ecrm1200
> mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen': Permission denied
> kpsestat: /var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/..: No such file or directory

Those bugs are the same, see

http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=zope&ver=2.6.4-1.4&arch=alpha&stamp=1093378265&file=log&as=raw

I'll have a look at it in a moment.

Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Hilmar Preusse (hille42)]

reassign 267896 tetex-base
stop

On 25.08.04 Kai Weber (<email address hidden>) wrote:

Hi,

> I had to reinstall my system and now latex fails when creating a
> new font. A relevant mktextfm call from missfont.log:
>
> $ mktextfm ecrm1200
> mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen': Permission denied
> kpsestat: /var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/..: No such file or directory
> chmod: too few arguments
> Try `chmod --help' for more information.
> mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/ec': No such file or directory
> kpsestat: /var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/ec/..: No such file or directory
> chmod: too few arguments
> Try `chmod --help' for more information.
> mktextfm: mktexdir /var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/ec failed.
>
> drwxr-xr-x 16 root root 4096 Aug 24 22:28 /var/
> drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 Aug 25 00:28 /var/cache/
> drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 Aug 25 00:28 /var/cache/fonts/
>
> $ ls -l /var/cache/fonts/
> total 16
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 root users 119 Aug 25 00:30 ls-R
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 22 13:56 pk
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 22 13:56 source
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 22 13:56 tfm
>
Your permission on pk, source and tfm are wrong. Please set them to
1777.
As of tetex-base 2.0.2b-x (why can't I find a changelog entry?) these
dirs are contained with 1777 in tetex-base. For any reason during
install of tetex-base the perms are set back to 755. I guess that is
an dpkg bug (or somewhere else). We should fix the perms in postin of
tetex-base again.

H.
--
sigmentation fault

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:07:32 +0200
From: Pierre Machard <email address hidden>
To: Frank =?iso-8859-1?Q?K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: tetex-bin: Impossible to process a .tex

--S5HS5MvDw4DmbRmb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:28:25AM +0200, Frank K=FCster wrote:
> Pierre Machard <email address hidden> wrote:
>=20
> > Yes but in that case, find a conveniant way to repair broken
> > installations.=20
>=20
> I have implemented it, using a different approach,=20
>=20
> db_fset/fget tetex-bin/$changed_question shown_again
>=20
> in my local version here; but I see no sense in uploading it, because it
> won't fix the zope issue.
>=20
> > It was 2.0.2-18. I will however reupload a new version of zope tonight.
> > I need to fix a postinst. I let you know if there is a problem building
> > your package. (I am using pbuilder to build my packages)
>=20
> You should have used the -v switch... Do you plan an other NMU? Do you
> think it's acceptable to upload a "debugging version" - it will take the
> autobuilders time, but hopefully help us track down the problem.

I've uploaded a new package last night to add the -v switch.

Cheers,
--=20
                                Pierre Machard
<email address hidden> http://debian.org
GPG: 1024D/23706F87 : B906 A53F 84E0 49B6 6CF7 82C2 B3A0 2D66 2370 6F87

--S5HS5MvDw4DmbRmb
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)

iD8DBQFBLEjDs6AtZiNwb4cRAnZXAKCRvjo43rZO8TKCn6x1+LZLmqWefACg3ydP
p6DJnSWY3k/JngbCdAMHi1s=
=bCe2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--S5HS5MvDw4DmbRmb--

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:55:48 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
To: Kai Weber <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267896: tetex-bin: mktextfm fails creating EC fonts

severity 267896 grave=20
merge 267413 267896
stop

Kai Weber <email address hidden> wrote:

> Package: tetex-bin
> Version: 2.0.2-19
> Severity: important
>
>
> I had to reinstall my system and now latex fails when creating a new font=
. A
> relevant mktextfm call from missfont.log:
>
> $ mktextfm ecrm1200
> mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen': Permissio=
n denied
> kpsestat: /var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/..: No such file or directory

Those bugs are the same, see=20

http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=3Dzope&ver=3D2.6.4-1.4&arch=3Dalpha=
&stamp=3D1093378265&file=3Dlog&as=3Draw

I'll have a look at it in a moment.

Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 10:24:04 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <email address hidden>
To: Kai Weber <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: Debian Control <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267896: tetex-bin: mktextfm fails creating EC fonts

reassign 267896 tetex-base
stop

On 25.08.04 Kai Weber (<email address hidden>) wrote:

Hi,

> I had to reinstall my system and now latex fails when creating a
> new font. A relevant mktextfm call from missfont.log:
>
> $ mktextfm ecrm1200
> mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen': Permission denied
> kpsestat: /var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/..: No such file or directory
> chmod: too few arguments
> Try `chmod --help' for more information.
> mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/ec': No such file or directory
> kpsestat: /var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/ec/..: No such file or directory
> chmod: too few arguments
> Try `chmod --help' for more information.
> mktextfm: mktexdir /var/cache/fonts/tfm/jknappen/ec failed.
>
> drwxr-xr-x 16 root root 4096 Aug 24 22:28 /var/
> drwxr-xr-x 8 root root 4096 Aug 25 00:28 /var/cache/
> drwxr-xr-x 5 root root 4096 Aug 25 00:28 /var/cache/fonts/
>
> $ ls -l /var/cache/fonts/
> total 16
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 root users 119 Aug 25 00:30 ls-R
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 22 13:56 pk
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 22 13:56 source
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Aug 22 13:56 tfm
>
Your permission on pk, source and tfm are wrong. Please set them to
1777.
As of tetex-base 2.0.2b-x (why can't I find a changelog entry?) these
dirs are contained with 1777 in tetex-base. For any reason during
install of tetex-base the perms are set back to 755. I guess that is
an dpkg bug (or somewhere else). We should fix the perms in postin of
tetex-base again.

H.
--
sigmentation fault

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

*** Bug 7596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Frank Küster (frank-debian)]

Source: tetex-base
Source-Version: 2.0.2b-3

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.diff.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.diff.gz
tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.dsc
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.dsc
tetex-base_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
tetex-doc_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
tetex-extra_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_2.0.2b-3_all.deb

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to <email address hidden>,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Frank Küster <email address hidden> (supplier of updated tetex-base package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing <email address hidden>)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:50:36 +0200
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2b-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <email address hidden>
Changed-By: Frank Küster <email address hidden>
Description:
 tetex-base - Basic library files of teTeX
 tetex-doc - The documentation component of the Debian teTeX packages
 tetex-extra - Additional library files of teTeX
Closes: 267413 267752
Changes:
 tetex-base (2.0.2b-3) unstable; urgency=high
 .
   * Fix permissions of the font cache directories, causing FTBFS of zope
     (and possibly others) (Closes: #267413, #267752), thanks to Pierre
     Machard <email address hidden> [frank]
Files:
 668f986d8a6a82db9bfbfbaccdce7eea 838 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.dsc
 37457f89400e56f60842fb10f1e1f83f 167756 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.diff.gz
 2815eac89db2d63e63925466eaf5e439 14355188 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
 78409355b4e92b9738aab1cfd280e1c0 10464008 tex optional tetex-extra_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
 3cb7ae051a3b10fc08afcbfba9922111 27743542 doc optional tetex-doc_2.0.2b-3_all.deb

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

iD8DBQFBLMkN+xs9YyJS+hoRAkPMAJ9aO00sCZXyF/rN+Jk07J7WWlg9QACgqXCI
gw7mOnPGgRMlEhs5hgtIwMM=
=0Jb4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:02:39 -0400
From: =?utf-8?q?Frank_K=C3=BCster?= <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Bug#267413: fixed in tetex-base 2.0.2b-3

Source: tetex-base
Source-Version: 2.0.2b-3

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
tetex-base, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.diff.gz
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.diff.gz
tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.dsc
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.dsc
tetex-base_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-base_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
tetex-doc_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-doc_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
tetex-extra_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
  to pool/main/t/tetex-base/tetex-extra_2.0.2b-3_all.deb

A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed. If you
have further comments please address them to <email address hidden>,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Frank Küster <email address hidden> (supplier of updated tetex-base package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing <email address hidden>)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:50:36 +0200
Source: tetex-base
Binary: tetex-extra tetex-doc tetex-base
Architecture: source all
Version: 2.0.2b-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: teTeX maintainers <email address hidden>
Changed-By: Frank Küster <email address hidden>
Description:
 tetex-base - Basic library files of teTeX
 tetex-doc - The documentation component of the Debian teTeX packages
 tetex-extra - Additional library files of teTeX
Closes: 267413 267752
Changes:
 tetex-base (2.0.2b-3) unstable; urgency=high
 .
   * Fix permissions of the font cache directories, causing FTBFS of zope
     (and possibly others) (Closes: #267413, #267752), thanks to Pierre
     Machard <email address hidden> [frank]
Files:
 668f986d8a6a82db9bfbfbaccdce7eea 838 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.dsc
 37457f89400e56f60842fb10f1e1f83f 167756 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2b-3.diff.gz
 2815eac89db2d63e63925466eaf5e439 14355188 tex optional tetex-base_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
 78409355b4e92b9738aab1cfd280e1c0 10464008 tex optional tetex-extra_2.0.2b-3_all.deb
 3cb7ae051a3b10fc08afcbfba9922111 27743542 doc optional tetex-doc_2.0.2b-3_all.deb

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

iD8DBQFBLMkN+xs9YyJS+hoRAkPMAJ9aO00sCZXyF/rN+Jk07J7WWlg9QACgqXCI
gw7mOnPGgRMlEhs5hgtIwMM=
=0Jb4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Ardo van Rangelrooij (ardo)]

Frank K?ster (<email address hidden>) wrote:
> Hi Ardo,
>
> we have a strange bug report here about zope FTBFS'ing because of a
> problem when debiandoc2ps calls latex. The original submitter has judged
> that this is a bug in tetex-bin, and indeed when logging into the dchroot
> on merulo.debian.org, one gets exactly the same error messages as in the
> build log.
>
> On merulo, however, I could pin down the problem to a change in the
> default debconf settings of tetex-bin long ago, that have not been
> accepted by the dchroot admins; when tetex-bin is installed from
> scratch, the same error cannot occur.
>
> There _is_ some error on the buildd's, however, and I do not know why.
>
> Did you have any similar complaints? Any idea? The bug logs are at
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/267413, with links to the buildd's logs in the
> first mail
>
> Thanks in advance, Frank

Hello Frank,

I've not been getting any complaints about this regarding debiandoc-sgml.
However, there are some issues with tetex-bin that could explain this. I
noticed you already contacted the tetex team about this, so me telling you
to do exactly that is not needed anymore.

Thanks,
Ardo
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij Debian XML/SGML Group
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>
http://people.debian.org/~ardo/ http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 21:18:59 -0500
From: Ardo van Rangelrooij <email address hidden>
To: Frank K?ster <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Problems with tetex-bin and debiandoc2*

Frank K?ster (<email address hidden>) wrote:
> Hi Ardo,
>
> we have a strange bug report here about zope FTBFS'ing because of a
> problem when debiandoc2ps calls latex. The original submitter has judged
> that this is a bug in tetex-bin, and indeed when logging into the dchroot
> on merulo.debian.org, one gets exactly the same error messages as in the
> build log.
>
> On merulo, however, I could pin down the problem to a change in the
> default debconf settings of tetex-bin long ago, that have not been
> accepted by the dchroot admins; when tetex-bin is installed from
> scratch, the same error cannot occur.
>
> There _is_ some error on the buildd's, however, and I do not know why.
>
> Did you have any similar complaints? Any idea? The bug logs are at
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/267413, with links to the buildd's logs in the
> first mail
>
> Thanks in advance, Frank

Hello Frank,

I've not been getting any complaints about this regarding debiandoc-sgml.
However, there are some issues with tetex-bin that could explain this. I
noticed you already contacted the tetex team about this, so me telling you
to do exactly that is not needed anymore.

Thanks,
Ardo
--
Ardo van Rangelrooij Debian XML/SGML Group
<email address hidden> <email address hidden>
http://people.debian.org/~ardo/ http://debian-xml-sgml.alioth.debian.org/

[Hilmar Preusse (hille42)]

On 29.08.04 Ardo van Rangelrooij (<email address hidden>) wrote:

Hi,

> I've not been getting any complaints about this regarding
> debiandoc-sgml. However, there are some issues with tetex-bin that
> could explain this. I noticed you already contacted the tetex team
> about this, so me telling you to do exactly that is not needed
> anymore.
>
As you mibght have noticed, Frank is one of the uploaders of tetex-.
So I guess, we don't have to tell him about tetex bugs.
The bug is actually closed anyway.

H.
--
sigmentation fault

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:56:10 +0200
From: Hilmar Preusse <email address hidden>
To: Ardo van Rangelrooij <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#267413: Problems with tetex-bin and debiandoc2*

On 29.08.04 Ardo van Rangelrooij (<email address hidden>) wrote:

Hi,

> I've not been getting any complaints about this regarding
> debiandoc-sgml. However, there are some issues with tetex-bin that
> could explain this. I noticed you already contacted the tetex team
> about this, so me telling you to do exactly that is not needed
> anymore.
>
As you mibght have noticed, Frank is one of the uploaders of tetex-.
So I guess, we don't have to tell him about tetex bugs.
The bug is actually closed anyway.

H.
--
sigmentation fault