[tex-live] TeXLive2007: Bug in (Xe)TeX for 64bit and big endianess

Frank Küster frank at kuesterei.ch
Wed May 9 12:05:43 CEST 2007

Hans Hagen <pragma at wxs.nl> wrote:

> Frank � wrote:
>> So we're left with fixing the bugs, but that is, unfortunately, *not*
>> just a question of taking the xpdf patch, applying it to the sources and
>> recompiling the packages.  That would be relatively easy and per se not
>> a reason for a switch to poppler.  The real problem is that in almost
>> all cases, the published patch does not apply because the copies of xpdf
>> in pdftex, pdftohtml, cups, forgotwhat all have slightly different
>> versions.  Plus we need to support our stable distribution, which meant
>> patching xpdf 1.x, 2.x and 3.x at some point in Debian (with sometimes
>> two or more different values for each x).
> since pdftex is rather monolithic, updating a statically bound pdftex
> is also an option; xpdf bugs are fixed in the repos and so pdftex has
> the fixes; since tex users need to update pdftex regularly anyway
> (because of other fixes) this no big burden on the user.

You mean we should have dropped xpdf 3.01p3 into woody's
teTeX-1.0whatever source directory and compile?  Although I guess that
would have worked, it's against the spirit of Debian Policy, and I
wouldn't want to have to justify it in public.

>> This is totally unrelated, because patches to the xpdf sources in Debian
>> have exactly zero effect on pdftex, no matter whether it uses its own
>> xpdf copy or libpoppler.
> hm, but isn't pdftex using its own patched copy of xpdf then? after
> all, it's supposed to be in the pdftex source tree

Yes, but these are *totally* different source packages. The patches that
Hamish applies to his xpdf source package are not related to the TeX
packages, not even communicated to the TeX maintainers.

Regards, Frank
Dr. Frank Küster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)

More information about the tex-live mailing list