Re: Problem with building PDFs

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

On 05/01/2013 04:40 PM, Freddie Chopin wrote:
> 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).

Attached.

> 4\/3!!

Attachment: sscanf.def
Description: Text document