Bug#872223: tex-common: fails to configure, fmtutils reports errors about missing files
reassign 872223 dpkg
severity 872223 grave
thanks
Well, probably not a missing Conflicts, as downgrading tex-common to the stretch
version does not fix the problem. Really a problem with missing files that should
not be missing.
In fact, despite having the package installed, there is no such .ini files on my system. packages.d.o shows that texlive-htmlxml from stretch should have them, but for some reason they do not appear on my system:
root@home:~# apt-cache policy texlive-htmlxml
texlive-htmlxml:
Installed: 2016.20170123-5
Candidate: 2016.20170123-5
Version table:
2017.20170808-1 900
500 ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages
500 ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable/main i386 Packages
900 ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian testing/main amd64 Packages
900 ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian testing/main i386 Packages
*** 2016.20170123-5 990
990 ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages
990 ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian stretch/main i386 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
root@home:~# grep jadetex /var/lib/dpkg/info/texlive-htmlxml.list
/usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex
/usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base
/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/jadetex
/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/jadetex/base
root@home:~# cp /var/lib/dpkg/info/texlive-htmlxml.list /tmp
root@home:~# aptitude reinstall texlive-htmlxml
... and then the configuration fails with another missing file:
! LaTeX Error: File `ulem.sty' not found.
Type X to quit or <RETURN> to proceed,
or enter new name. (Default extension: sty)
Enter file name:
! Emergency stop.
<read *>
l.27 \RequirePackage
{fancyhdr}^^M
! ==> Fatal error occurred, no output PDF file produced!
Transcript written on pdfjadetex.log.
fmtutil [ERROR]: running `pdftex -ini -jobname=jadetex -progname=jadetex *jadetex.ini </dev/null' return status 1
fmtutil [ERROR]: return error due to options --strict
fmtutil [ERROR]: running `pdftex -ini -jobname=pdfjadetex -progname=pdfjadetex *pdfjadetex.ini </dev/null' return status 1
fmtutil [ERROR]: return error due to options --strict
Now what changed ? Just a tiny bit - how the fuck is that possible ?
root@home:~# diff /var/lib/dpkg/info/texlive-htmlxml.list /tmp
89,100d88
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/ChangeLog-old.gz
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/ChangeLog.gz
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/Makefile
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/demo.sgm
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/docbook.dsl
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/index.html
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/index.xml.gz
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/index.xsl
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/jadetex.cfg
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/logo.png
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/releasenotes.dsl.gz
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/jadetex/base/releasenotes.xml.gz
103,118d90
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/englishutf16.xml
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/englishutf8.xml
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/langtest.xml
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/manual.html
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/manual.tex
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/manual.xml.gz
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/manual.xsl
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/portugeselatin1.xml
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/readme.txt
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/russiankoi8.xml
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/russianutf8.xml
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/testascii.cfg
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/testascii.tex
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/testascii.xml
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/testsec.tex
< /usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/otherformats/xmltex/base/testsec.xml
145,146d116
< /usr/share/man/man1/jadetex.1.gz
< /usr/share/man/man1/pdfjadetex.1.gz
541,546d510
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/jadetex/base/dsssl.def
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/jadetex/base/jadetex.ini
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/jadetex/base/jadetex.ltx
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/jadetex/base/pdfjadetex.ini
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/jadetex/base/uentities.sty
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/jadetex/base/ut1omlgc.fd
552,561d515
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/iso-8859-1.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/iso-8859-2.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/koi8-r.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/langtest.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/mathml2.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/sec.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/utf-16.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/windows-1250.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/xmltex.cfg
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/base/xmltex.tex
563,573d516
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/dummyels.sty
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/fotex.sty
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/fotex.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/mlnames.sty
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/tei.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/teiprintslides.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/teislides.xmt
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/teixml.sty
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/teixmlslides.sty
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/ucharacters.sty
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/passivetex/unicode.sty
575,576d517
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/xmltexconfig/pdfxmltex.ini
< /usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/xmltex/xmltexconfig/xmltex.ini
4260d4200
< /usr/bin/jadetex
4262,4264d4201
< /usr/bin/pdfjadetex
< /usr/bin/pdfxmltex
< /usr/bin/xmltex
Obviously that package is not the only one showing off the same issue, as can be derived from the new error:
root@home:~# grep ulem /var/lib/dpkg/info/texlive-generic-recommended.list
/usr/share/doc/texlive-doc/generic/ulem
/usr/share/texlive/texmf-dist/tex/generic/ulem
What's common to those packages are that they were downgraded from buster back to stretch (they had been mistakingly upgraded):
texlive-htmlxml:amd64 (2017.20170629-1, 2016.20170123-5)
texlive-generic-recommended:amd64 (2017.20170629-1, 2016.20170123-5)
dpkg.log shows nothing special really, except for the tex-common config failure:
2017-08-01 10:42:37 upgrade texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1 2016.20170123-5
2017-08-01 10:42:37 status half-configured texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-08-01 10:42:38 status unpacked texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-08-01 10:42:38 status half-installed texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-08-01 10:42:38 status half-installed texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-08-01 10:42:39 status unpacked texlive-generic-recommended:all 2016.20170123-5
2017-08-01 10:42:39 status unpacked texlive-generic-recommended:all 2016.20170123-5
...
2017-08-01 10:43:51 upgrade texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1 2016.20170123-5
2017-08-01 10:43:51 status half-configured texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-08-01 10:43:51 status unpacked texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-08-01 10:43:51 status half-installed texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-08-01 10:43:54 status half-installed texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-08-01 10:43:55 status unpacked texlive-htmlxml:all 2016.20170123-5
2017-08-01 10:43:55 status unpacked texlive-htmlxml:all 2016.20170123-5
...
2017-08-01 11:00:49 trigproc tex-common:all 6.07 <none>
2017-08-01 11:00:49 status half-configured tex-common:all 6.07
2017-08-01 11:00:50 status installed tex-common:all 6.07
...
2017-08-01 23:32:55 configure texlive-generic-recommended:all 2016.20170123-5 <none>
2017-08-01 23:32:55 status unpacked texlive-generic-recommended:all 2016.20170123-5
2017-08-01 23:32:55 status half-configured texlive-generic-recommended:all 2016.20170123-5
2017-08-01 23:32:55 status installed texlive-generic-recommended:all 2016.20170123-5
...
2017-08-01 23:32:58 configure texlive-htmlxml:all 2016.20170123-5 <none>
2017-08-01 23:32:58 status unpacked texlive-htmlxml:all 2016.20170123-5
2017-08-01 23:32:58 status half-configured texlive-htmlxml:all 2016.20170123-5
2017-08-01 23:32:58 status installed texlive-htmlxml:all 2016.20170123-5
...
2017-08-01 23:35:15 trigproc tex-common:all 6.07 <none>
2017-08-01 23:35:15 status half-configured tex-common:all 6.07
2017-08-01 23:35:49 startup packages configure
2017-08-01 23:35:49 configure tex-common:all 6.07 <none>
2017-08-01 23:35:49 status half-configured tex-common:all 6.07
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2020 Aug 1 10:42 /var/lib/dpkg/info/texlive-generic-recommended.list
Older logs show:
2017-07-14 22:33:44 configure texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1 <none>
2017-07-14 22:33:44 status unpacked texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-07-14 22:33:44 status half-configured texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-07-14 22:33:44 status installed texlive-generic-recommended:all 2017.20170629-1
...
2017-07-14 23:26:00 configure texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1 <none>
2017-07-14 23:26:00 status unpacked texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-07-14 23:26:00 status half-configured texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1
2017-07-14 23:26:00 status installed texlive-htmlxml:all 2017.20170629-1
...
2017-07-14 23:26:41 trigproc tex-common:all 6.07 <none>
2017-07-14 23:26:41 status half-configured tex-common:all 6.07
2017-07-14 23:27:04 status installed tex-common:all 6.07
I know that we do not really support package downgrading, but still, that stuff really looks like a bad dpkg bug, right ?
A shame we do not git-version all .list files to track down when something goes wrong like that...
Reply to: