Bug 1375931

Summary: texi2dvi --pdf fails to create PDF during mock build for Fedora 24+
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: David Kaspar // Dee'Kej <deekej>
Component: texinfoAssignee: Vitezslav Crhonek <vcrhonek>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 24CC: b38617, pertusus, vcrhonek
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: BuildBlocker
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gawk/2016-09/msg00018.html
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-09-19 12:54:39 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1370748    
Attachments:
Description Flags
gawk-4.1.4-1.fc26.src.rpm none

Description David Kaspar // Dee'Kej 2016-09-14 09:18:12 UTC
Created attachment 1200762 [details]
gawk-4.1.4-1.fc26.src.rpm

Description of problem:
I'm trying to do a rebase of gawk to version 4.1.4. During the build, we also compile the documentation from *.texi file to *.pdf and *.ps. While running the mock build locally, I see the error:
> /usr/bin/texi2dvi: pdfetex exited with bad status, quitting.

The compilation is terminated and the mock build fails because of it. I have already discussed this with gawk upstream (link to the mailing is in the URL above), there's more additional information in the mailing list.

Basically, the problem occurs when I try to build the latest gawk (4.1.4) for Fedora 24 and higher. *Building the same SRPM for Fedora 23 SUCCEEDS.*

I saw that the version of texinfo was updated to version 6.1 for F24 (version 6.0 is in F23).

I think that people were already facing similar issue:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-texinfo/2016-02/msg00121.html

However, the fix applied to texinfo-6.1 still does not help me build the SRPM.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This error only occurs inside mock! When I try to build the documentation by running 'make -C doc/ pdf' or 'cd doc && texi2dvi --pdf gawk.texi' (inside gawk-4.1.4 source directory) it succeeds.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
texinfo-6.1.3
texinfo-tex-6.1.3


How reproducible:
Always during local mock build.


Steps to Reproduce:
1. Download the attached SRPM for gawk.
2. Setup mock to work correctly.
3. Run:
> mock -r fedora-23-x86_64 gawk-4.1.4-1.fc26.src.rpm
 -- the build will SUCCEED
4. Run:
> mock -r fedora-24-x86_64 gawk-4.1.4-1.fc26.src.rpm
 -- the build will FAIL


Additional info:
For testing purposes, you can safely comment out the line number 151 in specfile:
# make %{?_smp_mflags}

It will skip directly to compilation of PDF documentation.

Comment 1 Account closed by the user 2016-09-14 13:58:21 UTC
(In reply to David Kaspar [Dee'Kej] from comment #0)

> I'm trying to do a rebase of gawk to version 4.1.4. During the build, we
> also compile the documentation from *.texi file to *.pdf and *.ps. While
> running the mock build locally, I see the error:
> > /usr/bin/texi2dvi: pdfetex exited with bad status, quitting.
> [...]
> Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
> texinfo-6.1.3
> texinfo-tex-6.1.3

texinfo-6.3 was released days ago, bug #1374962
Maybe it is worth update texinfo to 6.3, before waste more time in this issue.

Comment 2 David Kaspar // Dee'Kej 2016-09-14 15:06:27 UTC
Hello Xose, thank you very much for the info. Actually gawk upstream told me that texinfo-7.0 is coming out soon as well.

However, right now, the only version I can get in F24+ is the texinfo-6.1.3. I will try to discuss this with Vitezslav in person, to see what can be done.

Comment 3 David Kaspar // Dee'Kej 2016-09-19 12:54:39 UTC
So, after investigation together with Vitezslav (thanks Vita) we have found that there was some change (unknown to us) inside texinfo-6.1 causing texinfo not to use alternative fonts in case the required fonts were not found.

Therefore, the builds with older texinfo were successful (some alternative fonts were use).

I'm closing this bug as resolved.

NOTE: Discussion with upstream still continues if anyone is interested.

Comment 4 David Kaspar // Dee'Kej 2016-09-19 12:56:45 UTC
Additional NOTE: If any maintainer will face some similar/same issue, look properly into build log and try to find which fonts are missing for you during the build.

For this instance of gawk, it was missing fonts from these packages:
> texlive-ec
> texlive-cm-super