Bug#980144: mailutils: movemail does not remove start mailbox when moving

Hello, This appears to be a duplicate of #980042: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980042 Regards -- Florent

Bug#848114: flightgear: Allows the route manager to overwrite arbitrary files

e path before overwriting the file. . (also add a missing include that is directly needed for this commit) Author: Florent Rougon Origin: upstream, https://sourceforge.net/p/flightgear/flightgear/ci/280cd523686fbdb175d50417266d2487a8ce67d2/ --- a/src/Autopilot/route_mgr.cxx +++ b/src/Auto

Bug#848114: flightgear: Allows the route manager to overwrite arbitrary files

Markus Wanner wrote: > Hello Florent, > > thanks a lot for your notification and the patch(es). Uploads to stable > (security) and unstable should follow, shortly. Fine, thank you, Markus! Regards -- Florent

Bug#873439: [pkg-fgfs-crew] Bug#873439: flightgear: CVE-2017-13709: Incorrect access control

e patch headers are not in the Debian DEP-3 format, this needs fixing. + + -- Florent Rougon Mon, 28 Aug 2017 18:07:28 +0200 + flightgear (3.0.0-5+deb8u2) jessie; urgency=high * Add patch restrict-save-flightplan-secu-fix-faf872.patch: prevent diff -Nru flightgear-3.0.0/debian/patches/call-fgI

Bug#965193: policykit-1: fails to install: chown error on /usr/lib/policykit-1/polkit-agent-helper-1

Hello, Same problem here, please provide a fix. Thanks. -- Florent

Bug#373951: tetex-base: FTBFS: rerunning quilt push -a fails

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2006-06-16 16:50:06.0 + build-stamp >> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 2006-06-16 16:50:05.0 + patch-stamp >> frobnitz:/tmp/buildd/tetex-base-3.0# ls -ld --time-style=full-iso stampdir/ >> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4

Bug#357983: tetex-bin: mktexmf can't write new .mf files

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You did understand me correctly, but I reconsidered. I guess people who > install a TeX system first will face the same problem, and will find [...] > Therefore I think a debconf note is the only way to address everybody > we want to. We can still copy

Bug#357983: tetex-bin: mktexmf can't write new .mf files

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fine that we agree, but (as indicated in my older mail), I meanwhile > have found that the directory becomes non-world-writable only when the > existing debconf question is shown. Do you agree that the revised > wording of the question is sufficient? Wit

Bug#354113: jadetex: FTBFS: mktexdir failed

Hi, Daniel Schepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From my pbuilder build log: > > ... > Transcript written on jadetex.log. > make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/buildd/jadetex-3.13' > pdflatex '\nonstopmode\input{jadetex.dtx}' > latex.log > kpathsea: Running mktextfm ecrm1000 > mkdir: cannot create d

Bug#357983: tetex-bin: mktexmf can't write new .mf files

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's how it's always been on UNIX systems. Didier: you can verify this with the 'groups' command. > teTeX folks, I fear we have to revert this change and make the system > insecure by default. I suggest that we change it only for fresh > installations

Bug#357983: tetex-bin: mktexmf can't write new .mf files

Didier Verna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not opposed to that change. However, I still consider it a bug to > suddenly break working installations without further notice. And no, > README.Debian is not enough. There should be at least a big blinking red light > somewhere (probably at p

Bug#357983: tetex-bin: mktexmf can't write new .mf files

Didier Verna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or with id, I know. Look, I know it's unrelated to TeX, but I just > took the opportunity to ask some clarification on this behavior I've never > really understood on Unix. Why is a new login required to make the change > effective ? That's all. I

Bug#357983: tetex-bin: mktexmf can't write new .mf files

Didier Verna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Severity "grave" is justified because the sudden change of write > permissions on the /var/cache/fonts directory makes the tetex system unusable > as soon as a new font description has to be generated. I see. > Adding people to the users

Bug#357983: tetex-bin: mktexmf can't write new .mf files

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> NEWS.Debian? > > Or/and a debconf question of higher priority? Well, a debconf note looks to me as a workaround for people who don't have apt-listchanges installed (due to ignorance), since this is purely informational---no user input needed. But that wo

Bug#320980: [Christoph Bier] Re: Bug#320980: tetex-bin: Updmap error because a map file has not been found

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe we have a design flaw here in our updmap-magic scheme. Just that > it should have revealed itself earlier. Nope. :) > Here, tetex-base, tetex-bin and tetex-extra are upgraded in the same > apt-get run, and they are configured in the order tetex-

Bug#334713: tetex-bin: package doesn't install because of missing mfw binary

Hi, Please tell us what you get from: # cnf="$("$(kpsewhich --var-value=TEXMFMAIN)/texconfig/tcfmgr" \ --cmd find --file fmtutil.cnf)" \ && echo "cnf: $cnf" && grep mfw "$cnf"; unset cnf -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tr

Bug#334713: [Florian Cramer] Re: tetex-bin: package doesn't install because of missing mfw binary

Forwarding Florian's answer, since I got it privately. --- Begin Message --- Am Mittwoch, 19. Oktober 2005 um 23:41:22 Uhr (+0200) schrieb Florent Rougon: > Hi, > > Please tell us what you get from: > > # cnf="$ni The following: cnf: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtuti

Bug#334713: [Florian Cramer] Re: tetex-bin: package doesn't install because of missing mfw binary

Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The following: > > cnf: /var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf > mfw mfw - mf.ini > > As said, the error happens when I install tetex from scratch. Maybe you think it is from scratch, but actu

Bug#334713: tetex-bin: package doesn't install because of missing mfw binary

Forwarding again... --- Begin Message --- Am Donnerstag, 20. Oktober 2005 um 10:59:01 Uhr (+0200) schrieb Florent Rougon: > I don't know why (maybe this format is obsolete), but it explains why I > don't get the error you reported. Thanks. I purged all my latex packages, in

Bug#335055: tetex-bin: Uninstallable: rm: cannot remove `/var/lib/texmf/web2c/*fmt': No such file or directory

Hi, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It would be nice if this got uploaded soon, since this is causing > problems on the buildds. tetex-bin 3.0-10.1 is in incoming with Ralf's fix for this bug. Thanks. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsu

Bug#335231: lmodern: Dummy bug: should not migrate to testing before teTeX 3

Package: lmodern Version: 0.92-10 Severity: serious teTeX 3 won't enter testing before dummy bug #334722 is closed, and lmodern >= 0.92-9 should not enter testing before teTeX 3, otherwise it would be useless for TeX users since it depends on tex-common and tex-common conflicts with tetex-bin (<=

Bug#335303: tetex-bin: failed to install: updmap error

Hi, Sebastien Helleu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Output of apt: > > Setting up tetex-bin (3.0-10.1) ... What does 'dpkg -l tetex-base' say? > Running updmap-sys. This may take some time. ... [...] > !!! ERROR: The right location for map files has been > changed for this release and the m

Bug#335303: tetex-bin: failed to install: updmap error

Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What does 'dpkg -l tetex-base' say? Well, that one was at the end of the report (if it was done from the right machine), sorry: ii tetex-base3.0-10 Basic library files of teTeX -- Florent -- To UN

Bug#335303: tetex-bin: failed to install: updmap error

Sebastien Helleu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Thanks for reporting. From which version did you upgrade? > > I think from 3.0-10. You can confirm by looking at /var/log/dpkg.log. >> Interesting, current tetex has 'true' for the last two options. What is >> the output of 'ls /etc/texmf/updmap.d/'

Bug#335303: tetex-bin: failed to install: updmap error

Sebastien Helleu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > $ ls -l /usr/share/texmf/dvips/ > total 52 > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-22 18:08 antp > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-22 18:08 antt > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-23 02:13 base > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 2005-10-22 18:08 bl

Bug#335303: tetex-bin: failed to install: updmap error

Ralf Stubner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 fil

Bug#309008: another dir vs. symlink problem

Hi, Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > tetex-base contains /usr/share/doc/texmf/doc as a symlink. I suppose you mean /usr/share/texmf/doc. > In woody the package ivritex contained this as a directory. This is a bug that was partially fixed in ivritex 1.0-3 and finally fixed in vers

Bug#309008: another dir vs. symlink problem

Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In woody, tetex-base already contained this as a symlink, so surely it > was an RC issue all that time ago already? Yes. I think the problem was not noticed before because if tetex-base is unpacked before ivritex, this sentence of Policy applies:

Bug#309185: tetex-bin: FTBFS in experimental: Endless loop.

Hi, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your package is failing to build in experimental. It > seems to be stuck in an endless loop doing this over and > over again: [...] Here is my (partial) understanding of the problem: debian/rules contains a rule that causes it to be remade (which i

Bug#309185: tetex-bin: FTBFS in experimental: Endless loop.

Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that I'm doing this on a 2.6 kernel, which has sub-second > timestamps on files, which might be why you're not seeing it. Good to know (I'm working with a 2.4 kernel). Now, I have a possible explanation: Suppose we start debian/rules with the rules f

Bug#309596: tetex-base: FTBFS in experimental: Endless loop.

Hilmar Preusse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sure. Here we go. Thanks. As you can see, when the second debug snippet is written, Make has already taken the wrong decision of rebuilding debian/rules (the fact that the snippet is printed means that Make is running the commands to update debian/rule

Bug#309596: tetex-base: FTBFS in experimental: Endless loop.

Hilmar Preusse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Next log. Hope it is useful. I've put your debug log into rules and > rules.in. The commonstuff_update I've removed only from rules.in. I > firstly executed the clean target and after it ended the binary > target. Perfect, thanks. So, it doesn't loop an

Bug#310321: I cannot reproduce this bug... more detail?

Thanks, Don. Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally can't get this bug to reproduce here... can you give some > information as to what actually failed in pdfetex? > > [As I have this version installed on quite a few machines, I'd > strongly lean to downgrading this bug if no one

Bug#390004: tex-common fails to install trying to overwrite `/usr/share/texmf/doc'

reassign 390004 latex-ucs-doc close 390004 20041017-6 merge 390004 388376 thanks This bug belongs to latex-ucs-doc, and has already been fixed there. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#390004: Argh, severities don't match

severity 390004 serious merge 390004 388376 thanks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#356853: Scalable LaTeX font: Licensing question regarding ae fonts

Dear Lars, "Lars Engebretsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically, I don't really have the energy to care about intricacies of > licenses, but if you feel that a) you want to do the work and provide > me with a file that I can then upload to CTAN, and b) that this does > not change the licensi

Bug#356853: Scalable LaTeX font: Licensing question regarding ae fonts

[ Resending the message to a different address, as the previous one bounced: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host resolver3.levonline.com[217.70.32.98] said: 554 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Recipient address rejected: no such user (in reply to RCPT TO command) ] Dear Lars, "Lars Engebretsen" <[EMAIL PRO

Bug#391653: scalable-cyrfonts-tex: Version 4.8 doesn't comply with the Debian TeX Policy

Package: scalable-cyrfonts-tex Version: 4.8 Severity: serious Hi, Version 4.8 of scalable-cyrfonts-tex, which is still in testing, doesn't comply with the Debian TeX Policy (for a start, the updmap.cfg snippet file doesn't have the magic comment), which "might cause all kinds of updmap breakage,

Bug#392146: tetex-base: uninstallable: updmap-sys failed

reassign 392146 tetex-bin found 392146 3.0-20 close 392146 3.0-21 merge 392146 392105 thanks This bug should already be fixed by Frank's upload of tetex-bin. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#392240: tetex-base: fails to configure: updmap-sys

reassign 392240 tetex-bin severity 392240 serious found 392240 3.0-20 close 392240 3.0-21 merge 392240 392105 thanks This bug should already be fixed by Frank's upload of tetex-bin. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMA

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

Dear Sebastian, As part of a license audit in progress for the TeX distributions teTeX and TeX Live, we Debian[1] TeX maintainers found that a number of files in the ae package have no license statement, which unfortunately renders them undistributable. We think that the most natural choice of li

Bug#356853: License of your contributions to the ae package

Dear Alan, As part of a license audit in progress for the TeX distributions teTeX and TeX Live, we Debian[1] TeX maintainers found that a number of files in the ae package have no license statement, which unfortunately renders them undistributable. We think that the most natural choice of license

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

Dear Rolf, As part of a license audit in progress for the TeX distributions teTeX and TeX Live, we Debian[1] TeX maintainers found that a number of files in the ae package have no license statement, which unfortunately renders them undistributable. We think that the most natural choice of license

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

Dear Matthias, As part of a license audit in progress for the TeX distributions teTeX and TeX Live, we Debian[1] TeX maintainers found that a number of files in the ae package have no license statement, which unfortunately renders them undistributable. We think that the most natural choice of lic

Bug#356853: Licensing ae under the LPPL

I have received this from Alan Jeffrey: , | From: Alan Jeffrey | Subject: Re: License of your contributions to the ae package | To: Florent Rougon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:15:58 -0500 | | Dear Florent, | | I am happy for any files copyrighted to me as part of

Bug#356853: Licence de votre contribution au package ae / License of your contribution to the ae package

[ French version first; English translation follows ] Bonjour, Depuis plusieurs mois, les développeurs Debian[1] s'occupant de TeX, et notamment Frank Küster, travaillent sur un audit des licences des différents composants des distributions teTeX et TeX Live. Au cours de ce travail, nous avons tr

Bug#356853: Licence de votre contribution au package ae / License of your contribution to the ae package

[ French version first; English translation follows ] Bonjour, Depuis plusieurs mois, les développeurs Debian[1] s'occupant de TeX, et notamment Frank Küster, travaillent sur un audit des licences des différents composants de teTeX et TeX Live. Au cours de ce travail, nous avons trouvé que certai

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

Gilbert Ritschard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is to confirm that I accept that the file > > ae.sty > > be distributed under the LPPL, with the following statement > >% This work may be distributed and/or modified under the >% conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sebastian Rahtz) wrote: >> % This work may be distributed and/or modified under the >> % conditions of the LaTeX Project Public License, either version 1.3 >> % of this license or (at your option) any later version. >> % The latest version of this license is in >> %

Bug#431672: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: piuparts test: fails to install: line 43: update-updmap: command not found

Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > retitle 400742 dh_installtex should check the existence for tex file > tags 400742 - wontfix > thanks [...] > Ok, I retitled the bug and removed the wontfix stuff. If I find time I > will implement it. *WARNING* *WARNING* *WARNING* *WARNING* *WA

Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: piuparts test: fails to install: line 43: update-updmap: command not found

Rene Engelhard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Reason: if there were TeX files in any previous version of the package >> (up to the previous Debian release), then mktexlsr *has* to be run. > > Why weren't they in their own package then? Huh? I don't know. I'm not the maintainer of texpower. > Then

Bug#431672: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: Bug#400742: Bug#431671: piuparts test: fails to install: line 43: update-updmap: command not found

Hi, Nice to see you back! Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suggest we remove the wontfix tag and add a block on the dpkg bug > requesting the trigger, what do you think? Fine, feel free to do so. Regards, -- Florent

Bug#436235: texlive-lang-ukenglish: postinst and uninstall fail: "Package color Error: No driver specified."

Hi, "Johannes Rohr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was apparantly hit by bug #425803 Can we (or you) close the bug, then? Thanks. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#427859: lmodern fails to configure on upgrade, dpkg error

Hi, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you sure that lmodern doesn't need a higher version of tex-common? I looked at both changelogs and couldn't see why it would. Do you have anything specific in mind? > It also seems strange that the submitter has the stable version of it, > but t

Bug#427562: forkbomb: Workaround and request for comment on documentation

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Comments? Nice explanation, thank you. -- Florent

Bug#400494: lirc: Fix for the build failure caused by the inclusion of linux/config.h is incomplete

Hi, Loïc's upload of lirc 0.8.0-10 commented out the inclusion of in drivers/lirc_dev/lirc_dev.c, but that was not enough for me. lirc-modules-source still failed to build because drivers/lirc_serial/lirc_serial.c also wants to include that file. Commenting out the relevant line in lirc_serial.c

Bug#441526: lmodern: updmap-sys failed.

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree that we shouldn't change dh_installtex's default. Florent, will > you have time to fix this? Sorry, I don't feel well these days. Please do what you think should be done. -- Florent

Bug#403641: tetex-base: postrm fails if just unpackaged.

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On the other hand, I'm not sure how to fix this. There's a reason why > the update-* scripts fail (with an understandable error message) when > the basic file is missing - so this shouldn't be changed. Should we > really ignore all errors of update-* in

Bug#403641: tetex-base: postrm fails if just unpackaged.

In fact, this problem is taken care of by the dh_installtex snippets, and the approach is closer to "ignore errors but display a warning" than to "run the commands iff tex-common is configured, not ignoring errors": ,[ From lmodern's current postrm ] | case "$1" in | remove|disappear) |

Bug#403641: tetex-base: postrm fails if just unpackaged.

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is --quiet only used for update-updmap? It's the same script behind > the three, and with "-v" it always says IMHO, it's a bug that --quiet isn't used for all three calls. But this --quiet here dates from before we introduced dhit_check_run_without_e

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

Dear Rolf, I'm trying to reach you again using a different address, because my previous attempt[1] with your @ptb.de address failed. As part of a license audit in progress for the TeX distributions teTeX and TeX Live, we Debian[2] TeX maintainers found that a number of files in the ae package hav

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

Hi, Rolf Niepraschk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My account has been changed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] It would be nice if > you can change this also in "ae.sty". This address is the one I tried previously. So, you mean we should use the @gmx.de one instead, right? >From a pratical point of view, I th

Bug#419756: albatross: FTBFS: epstopdf: Command not found

Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes they do: texlive-extra-utils/2007 depends on > texlive-common/2007 conflicts with > texlive-pdfetex That is not enough. With these depends and conflicts, apt could unpack texlive-extra-utils/2007 while texlive-pdfetex is unpac

Bug#419756: albatross: FTBFS: epstopdf: Command not found

Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hmm. What about asking removal of texlive-pdfetex? Would be the cleanest > solution ;-) You could still hit the file conflict when upgrading from etch. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

Hi, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Florent, [...] > any chance that you find time for this? This is now done. Sorry for taking so much time, but this is one of those boring tasks with unclear non-technical choices[1] to make, so... [1] Who are the copyright holders for $file?

Bug#356853: License of your contribution to the ae package

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Great, merci beaucoup. You've forwarded it to Lars, so that he'll do > the upload? Yes, it's the previous message in the bug log. But indeed, I don't recall having seen it on -tex-maint. Maybe because it has an attachment of approx. 230 Ko? Hmmm... > No

Bug#421450: fiaif: FTBFS: File `fancyheadings.sty' not found.

Hi, Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Your package is failing to build with the following error: > ! LaTeX Error: File `fancyheadings.sty' not found. fancyheadings.sty has long been obsolete. fancyhdr.sty should be used instead. -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL P

Bug#356853: Relicensing the ae package under the LPPL

"Lars Engebretsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for doing all this work! I have now uploaded the updated > package to CTAN. That's great. Thank you very much, Lars. I cannot see the new version on CTAN yet, but I suppose it's a matter of days. Regards, -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

Bug#395274: bashism in postinst breaks installation/upgrade

Hi, Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, the bashism is in an if-clause, and I'm not sure whether the > shell finds a syntax error while reading the file, or only if it > actually gets there. If it does get there, this means the postinst > script was just about to tell you that it

Bug#395274: bashism in postinst breaks installation/upgrade

Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You seem to fear things that I think are good ;-) This just means that > Michael's system is fine, and my knowledge of shell is not. OK, so if I understood right, there is nothing to fix on the systems where the installation of tex-common 0.36 failed. The

Bug#396002: tetex-bin: fails to install

Hello, Peter Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > fmtutil-sys failed. Output has been stored in: > /tmp/tetex.format_creation.PGl27246/fmtutil-sys.log > Please include this file if you report a bug. [...] > fmtutil-sys failed. Output has been stored in: > /tmp/tetex.format_creation.GeT27825/f

Bug#396002: tetex-bin: fails to install

Peter Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Looking at line 822 of > > /usr/share/texmf-tetex/tex/generic/hyphen/icehyph.tex: > > [...] > d^^f35l^^ed > 1d^^f32m > d^^f3m5an > l.822 ---> d^^&35ne > 3d^^f3r >

Bug#396002: tetex-bin: fails to install

Peter Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It seems your file got corrupted for some reason, because: [...] > Yes, I think so, too: [...] > But no errors in messages about disk getting corrupted. :-/ I guess we can close the bug, right? -- Florent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE

Bug#775903: systemd: 'service initscript start' starts initscript.dpkg-dist under systemd

Package: systemd Version: 215-9 Severity: serious Tags: security Dear maintainer, I tried systemd after a wheezy → sid upgrade and encountered an annoying problem: after modifying a file related to my /etc/init.d/fetchmail script[1], I decided to start the fetchmail service with 'service fetchmai

Bug#780716: [pkg-fgfs-crew] Bug#780716: flightgear-data: nasal scripts can ready any file

Hi again, As far as I know, this bug is still present in 3.4.0+dfsg-0~exp1 (from experimental). The fix you applied to unstable (commit d8603af7f98a6394442818d823a79b680b1f9e8b) can be cherry-picked to experimental with minor conflicts (d/changelog and d/patches/series). It seems to work fine here

Bug#789922: kio-dev: uninstallable on current unstable

Package: kio-dev Version: 5.9.0-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 7.2 Hello, Since yesterday's upgrade, kio-dev is not installable anymore on sid: # aptitude install kio-dev The following NEW packages will be installed: kio{a} (for kio-dev) kio-dev libdbusmenu-qt5-2{a} (for kio-dev)

Bug#789922: kio-dev: uninstallable on current unstable

Hi Lisandro, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: >> Qt5 is currently going trough a transition, so this is just OK. You just >> need to wait until it's sorted out. > > Actually you will need to wait until the package gets pushed to unstable or > rebuilt in experimental. It should happen

Bug#811479: boot fails in "run-init -n ..."

Hello, Same problem here after yesterday's upgrade. The 0.122~a.test initramfs-tools and initramfs-tools-core packages mentioned by Ben at allowed my system to boot, thank you! (along with the Debian jessie installation DVD in rescue m

Bug#815864: python3-venv: unable to create a virtual environment

Package: python3-venv Version: 3.5.1-2 Severity: serious Justification: renders the package unusable Hello, It seems current Python 3 packages in Debian unstable don't allow creating a virtual environment anymore with pyvenv and friends: ~/python-venv % /usr/bin/python3.5 -m venv testdir The vir

Bug#815864: python3-venv: unable to create a virtual environment

Some more info: Inserting a 'print(cmd)' at line 259 showed that the direct cause of the error message is the command: ['/home/flo/python-venv/testdir/bin/python3.5', '-Im', 'ensurepip', '--upgrade', '--default-pip'] exiting with a non-zero exit status. Running this command by hand after th

Bug#815864: python3-venv: unable to create a virtual environment

Simple workaround for this bug: 1) Create the venv with --without-pip. For instance: /usr/bin/python3.5 -m venv --without-pip 2) Download https://bootstrap.pypa.io/get-pip.py as ~/tmp/get-pip.py. 3) Bootstrap pip "manually" in your venv: /bin/python ~/tmp/get-pip.py HTH