Re: LuaTeX 1.0.0?

[Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net>]

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:43:07PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> > > > Is there any intention to try packaging luatex 1.0.0 (or a newer
> 
> Can you or anyone interested in luatex 1.0.0 try:
> 
> 	deb http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ luatex1/
> 	deb-src http://people.debian.org/~preining/TeX/ luatex1/
> 
> These are new texlive-bin packages with luatex1 included.

Thanks, Norbert!

ConteXt didn't work without me regenerating the format files with
/var/lib/dpkg/info/context.postinst configure 2016.05.17.20160523-1

I wonder whether it's worth updating the context package along with
this, anyway?  But either way, it seems that texlive-bin should check
whether it needs to run "luatools --make cont-en" (just by checking
the output of "which luatools", I guess).

But it solves the integrals problem ;-)

> And, if someone has an idea how to fix the following lintian error:
> 	E: texlive-bin source: license-problem-convert-utf-code libs/teckit/TECkit-src/SFconv/ConvertUTF.c
> that would be even better ;-)

>From /usr/share/lintian/checks/cruft.desc:

Tag: license-problem-convert-utf-code
Severity: serious
Certainty: possible
Info: The following file source files include material under a
 non-free license from Unicode Inc. Therefore, it is
 not possible to ship this in main or contrib.
 .
 This license does not grant any permission
 to modify the files (thus failing DFSG#3). Moreover, the license grant
 to attempt to restrict use to "products supporting the Unicode
 Standard" (thus failing DFSG#6).
 .
 In this case a solution is to use libicu and to remove this code
 by repacking.
 .
 If this is a false-positive, please report a bug against Lintian.
Ref: #823100

>From a grep through the source tree, the only part of the system
requiring teckit is XeTeX.  And converting XeTeX to use libicu instead
of teckit is something that we should ask the upstream to do, I guess
- it is not likely to be a straightforward undertaking.

I don't know what we should do for stretch - I guess ask for an
exemption?  Excluding XeTeX after all this time seems wrong,
especially as this bug was only discovered relatively recently and the
amount of time required to fix it might be significant.

:-(

   Julian