>> 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/'? Did you (maybe automatically)
>> decline some offered updates of configuration files?
>
> $ ls -l /etc/texmf/updmap.d/
> total 16
> -rw------- 1 root root 2789 2005-10-22 18:11 00updmap.cfg
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2787 2005-10-22 18:17 00updmap.cfg.dpkg-dist
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2623 2005-10-19 16:10 10tetex-base.cfg
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1314 2005-10-19 16:11 20tetex-extra.cfg.dpkg-new
Ah, that can probably explain everything. You probably didn't accept the
updates for 00updmap.cfg and 20tetex-extra.cfg (the former with ucf, I
think; the latter is a conffile). Please:
1. Backup your old files if you customized them somehow.
Sebastien Helleu <email address hidden> 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 updmap. d/'? Did you (maybe automatically) updmap. d/ cfg.dpkg- dist extra.cfg. dpkg-new
>> the output of 'ls /etc/texmf/
>> decline some offered updates of configuration files?
>
> $ ls -l /etc/texmf/
> total 16
> -rw------- 1 root root 2789 2005-10-22 18:11 00updmap.cfg
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2787 2005-10-22 18:17 00updmap.
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2623 2005-10-19 16:10 10tetex-base.cfg
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1314 2005-10-19 16:11 20tetex-
Ah, that can probably explain everything. You probably didn't accept the
updates for 00updmap.cfg and 20tetex-extra.cfg (the former with ucf, I
think; the latter is a conffile). Please:
1. Backup your old files if you customized them somehow.
2. Run:
# mv 00updmap. cfg.dpkg- dist 00updmap.cfg extra.cfg. dpkg-new 20tetex-extra.cfg
# mv 20tetex-
# dpkg --configure -a
--
Florent