Problem with building PDFs

[Freddie Chopin]

W dniu 2013-05-01 22:10, Jeff Johnston pisze:
> Ok, let's go back a few steps.
>
> I am able to build the pdf and info targets fine.
>
> I am using Fedora 17 with the following packages:
>
> texinfo-4.13a-16.fc17.x86_64
> texinfo-tex-4.13a-16.fc17.x86_64
> texlive-2007-70.fc17.x86_64
>
> Can you please post to the texinfo mailing list to see if they have made
> any recent changes they think would cause the issue you are seeing?
>
> If there is something we are doing wrong, we can certainly look at
> altering the newlib/doc/doc.str file (e.g. removing the @* at the end of
> a bodytext:).
>
> -- Jeff J.

Well, I'm certain that recent release of texinfo 5 caused many trouble 
to various opensource projects like GCC, binutils etc.:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56258
http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org/msg1113210.html
http://sourceware-org.1504.n7.nabble.com/RFA-fix-gdb-texinfo-for-Texinfo-5-0-td222958.html
etc.
This matter is "fresh" - patches for these projects are 1-2 months old, 
there aren't probably many distros that use texlive 5 right now...

The strange thing is that I started to have problems with newlib pdfs 
before release of texinfo 5 /; So the problem with html (and info) is 
definitely related to texinfo 5, but the problem with PDF - ? ...

Currently I have (in Arch x64):
texinfo 5.1-1
texi2html 5.0-2
texlive 2012.0-10

As for the problems with PDF - I consider that this may be my fault, 
problem of my system or sth else - but something completely not related 
to newlib itself.

This particular issue (pdf) is probably not related to texinfo at all, 
as when I started having these problems I still had 4.13a - just a 
different package/build than when it was working for me, but still 
4.13a. This is probably not related to texlive too, as it was (and still 
is) version 2012...

Could you please send me one of generated .def files for one of 5 
problematic files - like sscanf.def? I'd like to check whether I'm 
getting identical result as you (if that's possible).

4\/3!!