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

Pander pander at opentaal.org
Tue Aug 14 20:36:12 CEST 2012

On 2012-08-14 18:52, Heiko Oberdiek wrote:
> 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.

So the goal would be integration testing. Since the package depencies
and mutual exclusion of some in usage prevents fully automating it,
manual configuration is needed I think. The following would be one way
of approaching it:

Per package, store a list of commands (re)using test files.
  package: hyperref
    command: pdflatex integrationtest1
    command: xelatex integrationtest1
    command: xelatex integrationtest2
    command: luatex integrationtest3
  package: fontspec
    command: xelatex integrationtest2
    command: xelatex integrationtest4

If one or more packages have changed, generate a list of unique command
that need to be executed ad run those tests. Tests failing should be
reported via e.g. email to TL maintainers.

>>>> 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 ...
> Yours sincerely
>   Heiko Oberdiek

More information about the tex-live mailing list