# [tex-live] hyperref/puenc.def broken after upgrade

Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wagner at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 21:49:16 CEST 2012

2012/8/14 Heiko Oberdiek <heiko.oberdiek at googlemail.com>:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 06:01:12PM +0200, Pander wrote:
>
>>  2012-08-14 17:44, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>> > Pander <pander at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2012-08-14 16:48, Robin Fairbairns wrote:
>> >>> Pander <pander at users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> About testing hyperref, the following isn't even working with xelatex:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> \documentclass{article}
>> >>>> \usepackage{hyperref}
>> >>>> \begin{document}
>> >>>> \end{document}
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Perhaps this could be part of some automated testing in TeX Live
>> >>>> whenever anything related to hyperref changes.
>
> TeX distributions: They would have to do it for every package update
> of every package. Many problems arise from compatibility issues
> between packages.
>
> hyperref: Yes, a better test infrastructure would be nice.
> For some of my packages I have already some more or less
> execessive tests. In case of hyperref:
> * The package infrastructure is different.
> * The package is much more complex, e.g., it has lots of options.
> * It supports many drivers. I do not even have access to some of them
>   (dvipsone, dviwindo, textures, ...).
> * I do not know tools that make testing in the TeX world easier
>   (except qstest, but that is limited to LaTeX + e-TeX).
>   Also tools are needed that analyze the output file formats:
> * And most important the interfaces need to be clarified and more precisely
>   defined and even simplified if possible. Currently there are many
>   differences between the drivers.
> * ...
>
> Designing, implementing a reasonable test infrastructure with developing
> all the needed tools is a software project much larger than hyperref itself.
>
> Hoewever, the man power of the maintainers of hyperref is limited,
> it is just one person.
>
>> >> If hyperref is a high risk upgrade, some simple testing would be in
>> >> place. People should be able to expect some quality when using TeX Live.
>> >> I value TeX Live distribution a lot so some extra tests would be very
>> >> welcome to keep on guaranteeing that.
>
> Then help in writing tools that assist in automatic tests, for example.
>
>> >> Just start out with a simple test such as the one above and each time a
>> >> problem arises with new packages, just add that particular test. In this
>> >> way, updating is less risky as it apparently is now.
>
> It is on my ToDo list ...
>
That's what I do with zwpagelayout but as Heiko wrote, there is no
automatic tool. I have to read all log files and view all PDF files
because the result may be wrong even without any error message. I have
to verify some features by viewing by Adobe Acrobat Pro because the
Reader will not show them. Thus I spent at least 2 hours be testing
each change. And zwpagelayout is much simpler than hyperref. There is
only one way how to save yourself and how to help:

1. Never update in the middle of an important project (you never know
what may cease to work)

2. Report bugs in a helpful way with minimal sample files, send your
log and add \listfiles above \documentclass so that the developer may
see the versions of your packages. This may be an important
information.

> Yours sincerely
>   Heiko Oberdiek

--
Zdeněk Wagner
http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz