[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:
>   link names, link positions, bookmarks, ...
> * 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

> Yours sincerely
>   Heiko Oberdiek

Zdeněk Wagner

More information about the tex-live mailing list