This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Lost /bin/latex?
- From: Igor Pechtchanski <pechtcha at cs dot nyu dot edu>
- To: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke at gnu dot org>
- Cc: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 12:32:07 -0400 (EDT)
- Subject: Re: Lost /bin/latex?
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Igor Pechtchanski <email@example.com> writes:
> > However, something did go wrong with the installation. I ended up with
> > invalid symbolic links in /bin (e.g., /usr/bin/initex was a symbolic link
> > to "bin/tex.exe").
> Yes, that is correct. Oh, wait a minute, to bin/tex.exe you say.
> That bug has just been fixed by the new release (20020911-1), that was
> uploaded yesterday just after you posted your message, so I assumed
> you already got the new release. Could you try upgrading?
Maybe I should, before bringing up any more issues. I have these problems
> > Also, any attempt to run latex failed with a '(Fatal format file
> > error; I'm stymied)'.
> > This was still a problem after I completely uninstalled and reinstalled
> > the tetex packages (tetex-base, tetex-bin, tetex-extra, tetex, and
> > libkpathsea3).
> > Running 'texconfig confall; texconfig rehash; texconfig init; texconfig
> > dvips printcmd -' fixed the 'Fatal error' problem,
> This is all very strange. Did you install using setup.exe? I'm sure
> you know that these commands are run (and must be run) during postinstall.
Yes, I installed using setup.exe. Maybe the format file just got
> > but the invalid symbolic links are still there.
> What links do you think are invalid? If it's serious, I might have to
> make a new release.
I meant the links to "bin/*" in /usr/bin... Let me upgrade to the new
version, though, before blowing the whistle.
> > This sequence of texconfig commands is, for some reason, commented
> > out from the /etc/postinstall/post-tetex.sh, but is present in
> > /etc/postinstall/post-texmf.sh, and I assume has been run (there is
> > no log of the postinstall script invocations, is there?).
> post-tetex.sh is something very old. post-texmf.sh should have been
> run. If it has, it gets renamed to post-texm.sh.done. The setup log
> should mention running it, but there is no log, or failure indication
> during the run of setup.exe if anything goes wrong, afaik.
Ok, then. I had tetex installed for at least 8 months now, so
post-tetex.sh could have been left over from an old installation. Oh, and
by the way, all the scripts in my /etc/postinstall/ have the .done suffix
- I was just interpolating the names... So post-texmf.sh did run. In
fact, I also see the log entry to that regard.
I'll try the upgrade to 20020911-1 now and report the results here.
|\ _,,,---,,_ firstname.lastname@example.org
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ email@example.com
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"Water molecules expand as they grow warmer" (C) Popular Science, Oct'02, p.51
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html