passivetex fails its post-install configuration.

[Debian Bug Importer]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #271291 http://bugs.debian.org/271291

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Automatically imported from Debian bug report #271291 http://bugs.debian.org/271291

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:22:57 +0200
From: Tom Peters <email address hidden>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <email address hidden>
Subject: passivetex fails its post-install configuration.

Package: passivetex
Version: 1.25-2
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux tompth.localdomain.fake 2.4.26 #1 Tue Apr 27 21:02:15 CEST 2004 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C

Versions of packages passivetex depends on:
ii tetex-bin 2.0.2-20 The teTeX binary files
ii xmltex 1.9-8 TeX package for processing XML fil

# dpkg --status passivetex
Package: passivetex
Status: install ok half-configured
...

tompth:/var/cache/apt/archives# dpkg -i passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
(Reading database ... 116730 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace passivetex 1.25-2 (using passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb)
..
Unpacking replacement passivetex ...
Setting up passivetex (1.25-2) ...
dpkg: error processing passivetex (--install):
 subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
 Errors were encountered while processing:
  passivetex

Nothing helpful on what goes wrong - how to proceed?

[Fabio Massimo Di Nitto (fabbione)]

tag 271291 unreproducible
tag 271291 moreinfo
stop

Hi,
 I have been trying to reproduce this bug in a sid chroot and i
couldn't succeed, both installing the package via apt-get and using dpkg
-i.

I am tempt to downgrade the severity but i will let the maintainer to
decide what to do.

Fabio

--
<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.

[Tpeters (tpeters)]

> tag 271291 unreproducible
> tag 271291 moreinfo
> stop
>
> Hi,
> I have been trying to reproduce this bug in a sid chroot and i
> couldn't succeed, both installing the package via apt-get and using dpkg
> -i.
>
> I am tempt to downgrade the severity but i will let the maintainer to
> decide what to do.

I am not surprised that this is not (easily) reproducible, or someone else
would have reported this long ago. But apparently there are certain
conditions under which the package fails to install. Please help me find
out what is happening on my particular system. The script itself does not
print any info on what goes wrong or why. Is there a log somewhere or
another way to generate more details when trying to install the package?

[Fabio Massimo Di Nitto (fabbione)]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 <email address hidden> wrote:

> I am not surprised that this is not (easily) reproducible, or someone else
> would have reported this long ago. But apparently there are certain
> conditions under which the package fails to install. Please help me find
> out what is happening on my particular system. The script itself does not
> print any info on what goes wrong or why. Is there a log somewhere or
> another way to generate more details when trying to install the package?

create a temporary folder somewhere, cd into it and do:

cp /var/cache/apt/archives/passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb .
(of course if the deb is not there you can grab it from anywhere)

dpkg -e passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
dpkg -x passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb .
vi DEBIAN/postinst

to look like:

# see: dh_installdeb(1)

set -e
set -x
FMTDIR=/etc/texmf/fmt.d
[SNIP]

rm passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
dpkg-deb -b . ../passivetex_1.25-2new_all.deb

and try to install the new package with dpkg -i. It will spit out a lot of
things that you should kindly record and attach them to the bug.

If you are not practical with shell scripting you should be able to do
something like:

dpkg -i passivetex_1.25-2new_all.deb 2>log

and all the debugging information should be saved in the log file.

Thanks
Fabio

--
<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.

[Fabio Massimo Di Nitto (fabbione)]

I can't reproduce this bug either in debian or warty.. downgrading temporary

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:19:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>

tag 271291 unreproducible
tag 271291 moreinfo
stop

Hi,
 I have been trying to reproduce this bug in a sid chroot and i
couldn't succeed, both installing the package via apt-get and using dpkg
-i.

I am tempt to downgrade the severity but i will let the maintainer to
decide what to do.

Fabio

--
<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:48:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: <email address hidden>
To: "Fabio Massimo Di Nitto" <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#271291: (no subject)

> tag 271291 unreproducible
> tag 271291 moreinfo
> stop
>
> Hi,
> I have been trying to reproduce this bug in a sid chroot and i
> couldn't succeed, both installing the package via apt-get and using dpkg
> -i.
>
> I am tempt to downgrade the severity but i will let the maintainer to
> decide what to do.

I am not surprised that this is not (easily) reproducible, or someone else
would have reported this long ago. But apparently there are certain
conditions under which the package fails to install. Please help me find
out what is happening on my particular system. The script itself does not
print any info on what goes wrong or why. Is there a log somewhere or
another way to generate more details when trying to install the package?

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:56:40 +0200 (CEST)
From: Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#271291: (no subject)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 <email address hidden> wrote:

> I am not surprised that this is not (easily) reproducible, or someone else
> would have reported this long ago. But apparently there are certain
> conditions under which the package fails to install. Please help me find
> out what is happening on my particular system. The script itself does not
> print any info on what goes wrong or why. Is there a log somewhere or
> another way to generate more details when trying to install the package?

create a temporary folder somewhere, cd into it and do:

cp /var/cache/apt/archives/passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb .
(of course if the deb is not there you can grab it from anywhere)

dpkg -e passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
dpkg -x passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb .
vi DEBIAN/postinst

to look like:

# see: dh_installdeb(1)

set -e
set -x
FMTDIR=/etc/texmf/fmt.d
[SNIP]

rm passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
dpkg-deb -b . ../passivetex_1.25-2new_all.deb

and try to install the new package with dpkg -i. It will spit out a lot of
things that you should kindly record and attach them to the bug.

If you are not practical with shell scripting you should be able to do
something like:

dpkg -i passivetex_1.25-2new_all.deb 2>log

and all the debugging information should be saved in the log file.

Thanks
Fabio

--
<user> fajita: step one
<fajita> Whatever the problem, step one is always to look in the error log.
<user> fajita: step two
<fajita> When in danger or in doubt, step two is to scream and shout.

[Tpeters (tpeters)]

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:

> create a temporary folder somewhere, cd into it and do:
>
> cp /var/cache/apt/archives/passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb .
> (of course if the deb is not there you can grab it from anywhere)
>
> dpkg -e passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
> dpkg -x passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb .
> vi DEBIAN/postinst
>
> to look like:
>
> # see: dh_installdeb(1)
>
> set -e
> set -x
> FMTDIR=/etc/texmf/fmt.d
> [SNIP]
>
> rm passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
> dpkg-deb -b . ../passivetex_1.25-2new_all.deb
>
> and try to install the new package with dpkg -i. It will spit out a lot of
> things that you should kindly record and attach them to the bug.

I attach the script file.

passivetex fails apparently because the fmtutil.cnf file isn't there. It
is supposed to be provided by tetex-bin. However, when I try to
re-install tetex-bin, it crashes for the same reason, even though it just
regenerated a fmtutil.cnf file, and there are plenty of others around;
indeed tetex-bin has been upgraded recently and apparently it could be
properly installed at that time. Now tetex-bin has status
half-configured. Interestingly, a texmf.cnf file with some temporary
filename is created in the directory from which I try to install the package.

Are current packages and scripts inconsistent in their expectations of the
locations of files?

I am at a loss now how to untangle this mess.

--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)

 Tom Peters
  NL-1062 KD nr 149 tel. [phone]
    Amsterdam e-mail <email address hidden>

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 20:38:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: "A.R. (Tom) Peters" <email address hidden>
To: Fabio Massimo Di Nitto <email address hidden>
cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#271291: (passivetex)

--1841464058-27953142-1095100737=:15678
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Fabio Massimo Di Nitto wrote:

> create a temporary folder somewhere, cd into it and do:
>
> cp /var/cache/apt/archives/passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb .
> (of course if the deb is not there you can grab it from anywhere)
>
> dpkg -e passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
> dpkg -x passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb .
> vi DEBIAN/postinst
>
> to look like:
>
> # see: dh_installdeb(1)
>
> set -e
> set -x
> FMTDIR=/etc/texmf/fmt.d
> [SNIP]
>
> rm passivetex_1.25-2_all.deb
> dpkg-deb -b . ../passivetex_1.25-2new_all.deb
>
> and try to install the new package with dpkg -i. It will spit out a lot of
> things that you should kindly record and attach them to the bug.

I attach the script file.

passivetex fails apparently because the fmtutil.cnf file isn't there. It
is supposed to be provided by tetex-bin. However, when I try to
re-install tetex-bin, it crashes for the same reason, even though it just
regenerated a fmtutil.cnf file, and there are plenty of others around;
indeed tetex-bin has been upgraded recently and apparently it could be
properly installed at that time. Now tetex-bin has status
half-configured. Interestingly, a texmf.cnf file with some temporary
filename is created in the directory from which I try to install the package.

Are current packages and scripts inconsistent in their expectations of the
locations of files?

I am at a loss now how to untangle this mess.

--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)

 Tom Peters
  NL-1062 KD nr 149 tel. [phone]
    Amsterdam e-mail <email address hidden>

--1841464058-27953142-1095100737=:15678
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; name=passivetexlog
Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64
Content-ID: <email address hidden>
Content-Description: script file of install attempt of passivetex and tetex-bin
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=passivetexlog
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...

[Tpeters (tpeters)]

I removed TeTeX and everything that depended on it from my system, and
then re-installed everything incl. passivetex. Installation now went
smoothly.
Apparently my system got into an inconsistent state after a recent
upgrade, but now I do not have the details how that could have come about.
It is not the first time, and I am afraid it will not be the last.
--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)

 Tom Peters

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 00:50:44 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Peters <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#271291 (passivetex) - SOLVED

I removed TeTeX and everything that depended on it from my system, and
then re-installed everything incl. passivetex. Installation now went
smoothly.
Apparently my system got into an inconsistent state after a recent
upgrade, but now I do not have the details how that could have come about.
It is not the first time, and I am afraid it will not be the last.
--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)

 Tom Peters

[Fabio Massimo Di Nitto (fabbione)]

I am closing this bug. Apparently the submitter system was in a bad and
unconsistent state. Nobody was able to reproduce it.

[Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei)]

Hi Tom, hi passivetex maintainers,

I'm one of the tetex-bin maintainers, and just read that bug report.

I think the bug might have been in tetex-bin_2.0.2-20 which was
installed when the bug was reported, and fixed in 2.0.2-21; from the
changelog:

  * Also provide a smooth upgrade path to the use of update-updmap and
    update-fmtutil, thanks to Pierre Machard <email address hidden> and
    Juhapekka Tolvanen <email address hidden> (closes: #268957, #267734).
    [frank]

Tom, you wrote:

> Interestingly, a texmf.cnf file with some temporary filename is
> created in the directory from which I try to install the package.

Was the filename something like 23456ETXMFC, i.e. a "random" number plus
ETXMFC? Then it is probably a close relative to the bug above, or rather
the part that was only fixed with 2.0.2-22:

  * Bug #267734 was not really fixed by the last upload because of a typo
    in the postinst script, thanks to Florent Rougon <email address hidden>
    (see discussion in debian-tetex-maint with 269416 in the
    subject). [frank]

(Unfortunately, this search pattern won't help. Instead search for
"ETXMFC" on debian-tetex-maint), giving

http://lists.debian.org/debian-tetex-maint/2004/09/msg00069.html

and the followup.

Regards, Frank

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

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:48:52 +0200
From: <email address hidden> (=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?=)
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: passivetex fails its post-install configuration

Hi Tom, hi passivetex maintainers,

I'm one of the tetex-bin maintainers, and just read that bug report.=20

I think the bug might have been in tetex-bin_2.0.2-20 which was
installed when the bug was reported, and fixed in 2.0.2-21; from the
changelog:

  * Also provide a smooth upgrade path to the use of update-updmap and
    update-fmtutil, thanks to Pierre Machard <email address hidden> and
    Juhapekka Tolvanen <email address hidden> (closes: #268957, #267734).=20
    [frank]

Tom, you wrote:

> Interestingly, a texmf.cnf file with some temporary filename is
> created in the directory from which I try to install the package.

Was the filename something like 23456ETXMFC, i.e. a "random" number plus
ETXMFC? Then it is probably a close relative to the bug above, or rather
the part that was only fixed with 2.0.2-22:

  * Bug #267734 was not really fixed by the last upload because of a typo
    in the postinst script, thanks to Florent Rougon <email address hidden>
    (see discussion in debian-tetex-maint with 269416 in the
    subject). [frank]

(Unfortunately, this search pattern won't help. Instead search for
"ETXMFC" on debian-tetex-maint), giving

http://lists.debian.org/debian-tetex-maint/2004/09/msg00069.html

and the followup.

Regards, Frank

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

[Tpeters (tpeters)]

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Frank Küster wrote:

> I'm one of the tetex-bin maintainers, and just read that bug report.
>
> I think the bug might have been in tetex-bin_2.0.2-20 which was
> installed when the bug was reported, and fixed in 2.0.2-21; from the
> changelog:
>
> * Also provide a smooth upgrade path to the use of update-updmap and
> update-fmtutil, thanks to Pierre Machard <email address hidden> and
> Juhapekka Tolvanen <email address hidden> (closes: #268957, #267734).
> [frank]
>
> Tom, you wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, a texmf.cnf file with some temporary filename is
> > created in the directory from which I try to install the package.
>
> Was the filename something like 23456ETXMFC, i.e. a "random" number plus
> ETXMFC? Then it is probably a close relative to the bug above, or rather
> the part that was only fixed with 2.0.2-22:

Thank you for your reply: I indeed have a whole buch of such files in
root's homedir.

I currently have:

# dpkg -s tetex-bin
Package: tetex-bin
Status: install ok installed
...
Version: 2.0.2-20

Now I have:

# apt-get update
...

# apt-get install tetex-bin
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 208 not upgraded.
Need to get 3927kB of archives. After unpacking 41.0kB will be used.
Get:1 ftp://ftp.nl.debian.org testing/main tetex-bin 2.0.2-22 [3927kB]
Fetched 3927kB in 33s (119kB/s)
Preconfiguring packages ...
(Reading database ... 112768 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace tetex-bin 2.0.2-20 (using
.../tetex-bin_2.0.2-22_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement tetex-bin ...
Setting up tetex-bin (2.0.2-22) ...
Replacing config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf with new version
Regenerating /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf ... Replacing config file
/etc/texmf/texmf.cnf with new version
done
Regenerating /var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf ... done
Regenerating /var/lib/texmf/web2c/updmap.cfg ... done
Running initex. This may take some time. ...
...

Running updmap. This may take some time. ...

If you want to change the default settings,
use /usr/bin/texconfig to configure teTeX.

Fixing permissions and group of ls-R as specified by debconf ...
mode of `/var/lib/texmf/ls-R' changed to 0664 (rw-rw-r--)
mode of `/var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN' changed to 0664 (rw-rw-r--)
mode of `/var/cache/fonts/ls-R' changed to 0664 (rw-rw-r--)

OK, that works now; and no new *ETXMFC. TeX still seems to work too.

Thank you for the update!

--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@*^@)

 Tom "thriving on chaos" Peters

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:53:25 +0200 (CEST)
From: Tom Peters <email address hidden>
To: =?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?= <email address hidden>
cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#271291: passivetex fails its post-install configuration

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Frank K=FCster wrote:

> I'm one of the tetex-bin maintainers, and just read that bug report.
>
> I think the bug might have been in tetex-bin_2.0.2-20 which was
> installed when the bug was reported, and fixed in 2.0.2-21; from the
> changelog:
>
> * Also provide a smooth upgrade path to the use of update-updmap and
> update-fmtutil, thanks to Pierre Machard <email address hidden> and
> Juhapekka Tolvanen <email address hidden> (closes: #268957, #267734).
> [frank]
>
> Tom, you wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, a texmf.cnf file with some temporary filename is
> > created in the directory from which I try to install the package.
>
> Was the filename something like 23456ETXMFC, i.e. a "random" number plus
> ETXMFC? Then it is probably a close relative to the bug above, or rather
> the part that was only fixed with 2.0.2-22:

Thank you for your reply: I indeed have a whole buch of such files in
root's homedir.

I currently have:

# dpkg -s tetex-bin
Package: tetex-bin
Status: install ok installed
=2E..
Version: 2.0.2-20

Now I have:

# apt-get update
=2E..

# apt-get install tetex-bin
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 208 not upgraded.
Need to get 3927kB of archives. After unpacking 41.0kB will be used.
Get:1 ftp://ftp.nl.debian.org testing/main tetex-bin 2.0.2-22 [3927kB]
Fetched 3927kB in 33s (119kB/s)
Preconfiguring packages ...
(Reading database ... 112768 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace tetex-bin 2.0.2-20 (using
=2E../tetex-bin_2.0.2-22_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement tetex-bin ...
Setting up tetex-bin (2.0.2-22) ...
Replacing config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf with new version
Regenerating /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf ... Replacing config file
/etc/texmf/texmf.cnf with new version
done
Regenerating /var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf ... done
Regenerating /var/lib/texmf/web2c/updmap.cfg ... done
Running initex. This may take some time. ...
=2E..

Running updmap. This may take some time. ...

If you want to change the default settings,
use /usr/bin/texconfig to configure teTeX.

Fixing permissions and group of ls-R as specified by debconf ...
mode of `/var/lib/texmf/ls-R' changed to 0664 (rw-rw-r--)
mode of `/var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN' changed to 0664 (rw-rw-r--)
mode of `/var/cache/fonts/ls-R' changed to 0664 (rw-rw-r--)

OK, that works now; and no new *ETXMFC. TeX still seems to work too.

Thank you for the update!

--
#>!$!%(@^%#%*(&(#@#*$^@^$##*#@&(%)@**$!(&!^(#((#&%!)%*@)(&$($$%(@#)&*!^$)^@=
*^@)

=09Tom "thriving on chaos" Peters

[Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei)]

Tom Peters <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Frank Küster wrote:
>>
>> Was the filename something like 23456ETXMFC, i.e. a "random" number plus
>> ETXMFC? Then it is probably a close relative to the bug above, or rather
>> the part that was only fixed with 2.0.2-22:
>
> Thank you for your reply: I indeed have a whole buch of such files in
> root's homedir.
>
> I currently have:
>
> # dpkg -s tetex-bin
> Package: tetex-bin
> Status: install ok installed
> ...
> Version: 2.0.2-20
[...]
> Setting up tetex-bin (2.0.2-22) ...
> Replacing config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf with new version
[..]
> OK, that works now; and no new *ETXMFC. TeX still seems to work too.

Good. I think we can close this bug. It's just a duplicate of the
similar reports we had on tetex-bin (none with a bug number, actually,
therefore nothing to close in 2.0.2-22).

If nobody cries out until tomorrow morning, I'll close it then.

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

[Frank Küster (frank-kuesterei)]

> If nobody cries out until tomorrow morning, I'll close it then.

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

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 22:24:38 +0200
From: <email address hidden> (=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?=)
To: Tom Peters <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#271291: passivetex fails its post-install configuration

Tom Peters <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Frank K=FCster wrote:
>>
>> Was the filename something like 23456ETXMFC, i.e. a "random" number plus
>> ETXMFC? Then it is probably a close relative to the bug above, or rather
>> the part that was only fixed with 2.0.2-22:
>
> Thank you for your reply: I indeed have a whole buch of such files in
> root's homedir.
>
> I currently have:
>
> # dpkg -s tetex-bin
> Package: tetex-bin
> Status: install ok installed
> ...
> Version: 2.0.2-20
[...]
> Setting up tetex-bin (2.0.2-22) ...
> Replacing config file /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf with new version
[..]
> OK, that works now; and no new *ETXMFC. TeX still seems to work too.

Good. I think we can close this bug. It's just a duplicate of the
similar reports we had on tetex-bin (none with a bug number, actually,
therefore nothing to close in 2.0.2-22).

If nobody cries out until tomorrow morning, I'll close it then.

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

[Debian Bug Importer (debzilla)]

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:42:16 +0200
From: <email address hidden> (=?iso-8859-1?q?Frank_K=FCster?=)
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: Tom Peters <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#271291: passivetex fails its post-install configuration

> If nobody cries out until tomorrow morning, I'll close it then.

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