Bug#659680: texlive-xetex: xelatex error: ``(Fatal format file error; I'm stymied)"

[Matthew Bellis]

Package: texlive-xetex
Version: 2009-15
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,
*** Please consider answering these questions, where appropriate ***

* What led up to the situation?
Using xelatex.

* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
ineffective)?
xelatex no longer compiles the simplets latex file.

* What was the outcome of this action?
The error message:

This is XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.2-0.9995.2 (TeX Live 2009/Debian)
(Fatal format file error; I'm stymied)


* What outcome did you expect instead?

Standard latex compilation.

Error seems to be related to a zlib upgrade.

http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=3484935&group_id=194926&atid=951385


-- Package-specific info:
If you report an error when running one of the TeX-related binaries
(latex, pdftex, metafont,...), or if the bug is related to bad or wrong
output, please include a MINIMAL example input file that produces the
error in your report.


Please run your example with
(pdf)latex -recorder ...
(or any other program that supports -recorder) and send us the generated
file with the extension .fls, it lists all the files loaded during
the run and can easily explain problems induced by outdated files in
your home directory.

Don't forget to also include minimal examples of other files that are
needed, e.g. bibtex databases. Often it also helps
to include the logfile. Please, never send included pictures!

If your example file isn't short or produces more than one page of
output (except when multiple pages are needed to show the problem),
you can probably minimize it further. Instructions on how to do that
can be found at

http://www.latex-einfuehrung.de/mini-en.html (english)

or

http://www.latex-einfuehrung.de/mini.html (german)

##################################
minimal input file

\documentclass[]{article}

\begin{document}
Hello world!
\end{document}


##################################
other files

Output.fls file

PWD ***/example.tex
INPUT /usr/share/texmf/web2c/texmf.cnf
INPUT /var/lib/texmf/web2c/xetex/xelatex.fmt


######################################
List of ls-R files

-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1217 Feb 12 21:44 /var/lib/texmf/ls-R
-rw-rw-r-- 1 root staff 360 Feb 12 21:25 /usr/local/share/texmf/ls-R
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Jun 25 2011 /usr/share/texmf/ls-R -> /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXMFMAIN
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Nov 13 16:41 /usr/share/texmf-texlive/ls-R -> /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXLIVE
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 27 Nov 13 16:41 /usr/share/texmf-texlive/ls-R -> /var/lib/texmf/ls-R-TEXLIVE
######################################
Config files
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Jun 25 2011 /usr/share/texmf/web2c/texmf.cnf -> /etc/texmf/texmf.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5113 Feb 12 21:44 /var/lib/texmf/web2c/fmtutil.cnf
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8850 Feb 12 21:44 /var/lib/texmf/web2c/updmap.cfg
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3110 Feb 12 21:44 /var/lib/texmf/tex/generic/config/language.dat
######################################
Files in /etc/texmf/web2c/
total 4
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 283 Jun 25 2011 mktex.cnf
######################################
md5sums of texmf.d
3875bf0f4a53a29b7f247399dc9833e2 /etc/texmf/texmf.d/05TeXMF.cnf
6e82a3d4c00ae7e4f86aa8dcf9438cf3 /etc/texmf/texmf.d/15Plain.cnf
c60a084820a0b73e3bfbf2e90bda437c /etc/texmf/texmf.d/45TeXinputs.cnf
ea33127256c6a9f37145ae5b16fdb80c /etc/texmf/texmf.d/55Fonts.cnf
afccf1d3f87057411166a77c58e00bd1 /etc/texmf/texmf.d/65BibTeX.cnf
9da7c1c7b1eaf06f941af91f48a23068 /etc/texmf/texmf.d/75DviPS.cnf
7ae52efac46feb97010986e57877d12e /etc/texmf/texmf.d/80DVIPDFMx.cnf
37329819f1109e8a457e64b8b58fecdb /etc/texmf/texmf.d/85Misc.cnf
a8952d594677235951d447665ec46e9c /etc/texmf/texmf.d/90TeXDoc.cnf
402d5adb3864c09ed3cd80c0f2131361 /etc/texmf/texmf.d/95NonPath.cnf

-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 3.1.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages texlive-xetex depends on:
ii dpkg 1.16.1.2
ii tex-common 2.10
ii texlive-base 2009-15
ii texlive-binaries 2009-11
ii texlive-common 2009-15
ii texlive-latex-base 2009-15

Versions of packages texlive-xetex recommends:
ii lmodern 2.004.1-3.1

texlive-xetex suggests no packages.

Versions of packages tex-common depends on:
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.41
ii dpkg 1.16.1.2
ii ucf 3.0025+nmu2

Versions of packages tex-common suggests:
ii debhelper 9.20120115

Versions of packages texlive-xetex is related to:
ii tex-common 2.10
ii texlive-binaries 2009-11

-- debconf information:
tex-common/check_texmf_wrong:
tex-common/check_texmf_missing:



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org

[Norbert Preining]

clone 659680 -1
reassign -1 zlib1g
# reason: breaks unrelated software
severity -1 serious
retitle -1 zlib update is not backward compatible, gzeof behaviour change
thanks

> Error seems to be related to a zlib upgrade.

Hi Matthew,

yes.

THis is zlib madness. THey cannot upgrade a minor version and
break backward compatibility, and in additon there is no reason
to change this behaviour, they should introduce a new function.

Assigning to zlib, maintainers of zlib, what is your plan here?
Should we patch xetex (and probably many other packages have to be
fixed, too), or do you intend to fix this misbehaviour?

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLINSK (n.)
A hat which politicians but to go to Russia in.
--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

[Norbert Preining]

Hi Jonathan,

On So, 12 Feb 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> No need to be so confrontational. Couldn't you summarize the bug
> (symptoms or underlying cause, whichever is understood) to us so we
> have information that would be useful for fixing it, instead?

Sorry, I expected that you know about this already.

Anyway, here is a link:
http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2012-February/031066.html

quoting:
> This release of zlib fixed a bug with gzeof() to make its behavior
> match that of feof(). gzeof() now returns true only if the last read
> went *past* the end of file, not just up to EOF.

(written by the OP to the tldistro list).

There is also a patch for xetex there.

And the response from Karl Berry:
http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2012-February/031070.html

> (I imagine it's nothing to do with you, but I can't help but say that I
> don't think I'd call the old behavior a bug. It was just the old
> behavior, which was perfectly fine. Seems like more of a bug to force
> every user of the library to now detect the library version and behave
> differently when it was never needed before. They should have invented
> a new function IMHO. Oh well, no going back now, I'm sure.)


> In particular, what version of zlib are you using? Based on [1] I get
> the impression that zlib 1.2.3.5's gzeof has a bug that both 1.2.3.4
> and 1.2.5 lack. Are you asking for that bug to be fixed or for it to
> be brought back again?

1.2.5 -> 1.2.6

> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=10;bug=575994

Yes, this is the same bug I assume.

Best wishes

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------

RAMSGATE (n.)
All institutional buildings must, by law, contain at least twenty
ramsgates. These are doors which open the opposite way to the one you
expect.

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 01:09:27PM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:

> Assigning to zlib, maintainers of zlib, what is your plan here?
> Should we patch xetex (and probably many other packages have to be
> fixed, too), or do you intend to fix this misbehaviour?

I've no intention to diverge from upstream on this, maintaining a
different interface to upstream doesn't seem like a smart move. Given
that the TeX upstream appears to have already changed their code for the
new zlib upstream it seems like they're not expecting any change in zlib
and will be updated to use the new interface with their next release.

I can add a Breaks to the package to help handle partial upgrade cases.

A brief look at what's installed on my particular system suggests that
this isn't a terribly widely used function, I'm actually only seeing
users from TeX but that's not exactly a full archive scan.

[Norbert Preining]

Hallo Hilmar,

On Di, 14 Feb 2012, Hilmar Preusse wrote:
> > Anyway, I will upload new texlive-binaries with just this fix.
> >
> Do you find the time or should I do?

Ich mach mich grad dran ...

Herzliche Grüße

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or
so, nothing continued to happen.
--- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy

[Hilmar Preusse]

On 14.02.12 Norbert Preining (prei...@logic.at) wrote:
> On Mo, 13 Feb 2012, Mark Brown wrote:

Hi,

> > that the TeX upstream appears to have already changed their code
> > for the new zlib upstream it seems like they're not expecting any
> > change in zlib and will be updated to use the new interface with
> > their next release.
>

> Yes, but you missed the point, namely breaking unrelated software.

> Anyway, I will upload new texlive-binaries with just this fix.
>
Do you find the time or should I do?

H.
--
sigmentation fault

[Norbert Preining]

On Mo, 13 Feb 2012, Mark Brown wrote:

> > I just checked, it seems to *NOT* be necessary. During upgrades
> > xetex will be called only in -ini mode, and that still works.
> > Only a normal run to process a document, which loads the format,
> > will not work.
>
> I was thinking for the case where someone upgrades zlib but for whatever
> reason doesn't upgrade TeX at all - it's not exactly going to be common
> but it's simple enough to do.

Ok, yeah, I agree, that might be necessary. I am preparing texlive-binaries
-12 revision just now, this version should be fine, so before -12
it should break.

Thanks.
> Most of the gzio users are pretty noddy, the pattern is more usually to
> just read until error or something similar rather than having detailed
> error checking.

Hahaha, bad bad bad ;-)

Anyway, thanks.

Norbert
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Norbert Preining preining@{jaist.ac.jp, logic.at, debian.org}
JAIST, Japan TeX Live & Debian Developer
DSA: 0x09C5B094 fp: 14DF 2E6C 0307 BE6D AD76 A9C0 D2BF 4AA3 09C5 B094
------------------------------------------------------------------------

MILWAUKEE (n.)
The melodious whistling, chanting and humming tone of the milwaukee
can be heard whenever a public lavatory is entered. It is the way the
occupants of the cubicles have of telling you there's no lock on their
door and you can't come in.

--- Douglas Adams, The Meaning of Liff

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:00:39AM +0900, Norbert Preining wrote:
> On Mo, 13 Feb 2012, Mark Brown wrote:

> > that the TeX upstream appears to have already changed their code for the
> > new zlib upstream it seems like they're not expecting any change in zlib
> > and will be updated to use the new interface with their next release.

> Yes, but you missed the point, namely breaking unrelated software.
> Anyway, I will upload new texlive-binaries with just this fix.

No, I totally understand that point - I'm just saying that in this case
it seems like the way to deal with the issue is to stick with the two
upstreams rather than try to come up with a different fix locally.

> > I can add a Breaks to the package to help handle partial upgrade cases.

> I just checked, it seems to *NOT* be necessary. During upgrades
> xetex will be called only in -ini mode, and that still works.
> Only a normal run to process a document, which loads the format,
> will not work.

I was thinking for the case where someone upgrades zlib but for whatever
reason doesn't upgrade TeX at all - it's not exactly going to be common
but it's simple enough to do.

> > A brief look at what's installed on my particular system suggests that
> > this isn't a terribly widely used function, I'm actually only seeing
> > users from TeX but that's not exactly a full archive scan.

> Huuu, I would expect that a function like *eof() will be used in more
> than xetex place... but anyway.

Most of the gzio users are pretty noddy, the pattern is more usually to
just read until error or something similar rather than having detailed
error checking.

[Matt]

Thanks, Norbert et al! Works like a charm now!
Matt

This is an automatic notification regarding your Bug report
which was filed against the texlive-xetex package:

#659680: texlive-xetex: xelatex error: ``(Fatal format file error; I'm stymied)"

It has been closed by Norbert Preining <prei...@debian.org>.