Ralf Stubner <email address hidden> wrote:

> used. This could cause a wrong search path for mapfiles. What I am
> wondering is why this problem didn't occur during the original 2.0.2 ->
> 3.0 update. Also, why are dvips35.map and pdftex35.map still available
> in /etx/texmf/dvips? I thought these files are moved somehwere save on
> instalation.

Hmm. Normally, in sarge, you have:

  % dpkg -S dvips35.map pdftex35.map dvipdfm35.map
  tetex-base: /usr/share/texmf/dvips/tetex/dvips35.map
  tetex-base: /usr/share/texmf/dvips/tetex/pdftex35.map
  tetex-base: /usr/share/texmf/dvips/tetex/dvipdfm35.map

but tetex-base/README.Debian.gz (from sarge) says:

,----
| 
| 2. Changes in handling of map files (unneeded files in /etc/texmf/dvips)
| -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| 
| Font map files previously were installed as conffiles (i.e.,
| configuration files managed by dpkg) in older versions of tetex-base
| and tetex-extra (e.g. in woody) in /etc/texmf/dvips. Since it is in
| fact not necessary to change them, they are now treated as ordinary
| files and installed below /usr/share/texmf/dvips. Because of Debian
| Policy (and the way dpkg handles conffiles), the copies in
| /etc/texmf/dvips will not be removed when you upgrade, although they
| are useless. You can quite safely delete them (but then you won't be
| able to downgrade any more unless you purge the packages). Any changes
| you made previously in these files will no longer have any effect.
| 
| It is usually a good idea to remove those files if you have not
| changed them. You can use the script
| /usr/share/doc/tetex-base/remove-oldmaps to do this. The list of files
| is: 
| 
| antp.cfg antt.cfg pl.cfg
| config.qf 
| ar-ext-adobe-bi.map ar-ext-adobe-kb.map ar-ext-urw-kb.map
| ar-ext-urw-urw.map ar-std-adobe-bi.map ar-std-adobe-kb.map
| ar-std-urw-kb.map ar-std-urw-urw.map bakoma-extra.map
| bsr.map bsr-interpolated.map
| lw35extra-adobe-bi.map lw35extra-adobe-kb.map lw35extra-urw-kb.map
| lw35extra-urw-urw.map mathpple-ext.map mtsupp-ext-adobe-bi.map
| mtsupp-ext-adobe-kb.map mtsupp-ext-urw-kb.map mtsupp-ext-urw-urw.map
| mtsupp-std-adobe-bi.map mtsupp-std-adobe-kb.map mtsupp-std-urw-kb.map
| mtsupp-std-urw-urw.map raw-ar-ext-adobe-bi.map raw-ar-ext-adobe-kb.map
| raw-ar-ext-urw-kb.map raw-ar-ext-urw-urw.map raw-ar-std-adobe-bi.map
| raw-ar-std-adobe-kb.map raw-ar-std-urw-kb.map raw-ar-std-urw-urw.map
| raw-lw35extra-adobe-bi.map raw-lw35extra-adobe-kb.map
| raw-lw35extra-urw-kb.map raw-lw35extra-urw-urw.map utopia.map
| 
| Some intermediate versions of tetex deleted those files in maintainer
| scripts (which was a bug). Therefore, if you used testing, unstable or
| some backports after woody's release, they might not exist on your
| system. 
| 
| Do NOT delete other files in the directory, they are still required.
`----

However, the preceding list doesn't contain dvips35.map nor
pdftex35.map. Is it incomplete?...

Second observation: if you look at the updmap-sys error messages posted
by Sébastien, you'll see they are generated by 'mapWarn badLocation' for
the first two and by 'mapWarn notFound' for the last one.

This means that we were in the main 'else' clause of locateMapMigrate().
IOW, the new files were not found at all. I wouldn't be surprised to
learn that Sébastien has .dpkg-new files in /etc/texmf/map/dvips/tetex/.

-- 
Florent