Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 22838 - tex is broken
tex is broken
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: tetex (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
high Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Tim Waugh
David Lawrence
: 20802 23241 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2000-12-26 08:33 EST by Gerald Teschl
Modified: 2005-10-31 17:00 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2001-01-03 14:37:48 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Gerald Teschl 2000-12-26 08:33:02 EST
tex is broken. All format files are missing. I tried to compile the format
latex, but tex will fail. The errors make absolutely no sense.
Comment 1 Jeff Johnson 2000-12-27 20:00:46 EST
Can you p[rovide an example of what you are trying to do?
Comment 2 Gerald Teschl 2000-12-28 06:23:52 EST
I tried to compile a simple latex file

%%%%%% test.tex %%%%%%%%
Hello world!

[gerald@soliton tmp]$ latex test.tex
This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1)
I can't find the format file `latex.fmt'!

Obviously there is the format missing (which should be present in a correct
Hence I tried to compile it myself

[root@soliton /root]# tex -ini -fmt=latex -progname=latex latex.ini
This is TeX, Version 3.14159 (Web2C 7.3.1) (INITEX)
! Arithmetic overflow.
l.125 \multiply\count2 60


(That makes 100 errors; please try again.)
No pages of output.
Transcript written on latex.log.

I looked at the source where the first error occures in
on line 515, where tex checks that the format is sufficiently recent. The code
is fine and
compiles with no errors on my Mac.
Comment 3 Jeff Johnson 2000-12-28 12:03:46 EST
Yup, got it,  thanks for pointing to the problem. Compilation with -O0 fixes,
better fix
Comment 4 Jeff Johnson 2000-12-29 15:51:36 EST
Better fix is to compile with gcc-2.96-69, done in tetex-1.0.7-11.
Comment 5 Jeff Johnson 2000-12-29 15:52:11 EST
*** Bug 20802 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 6 Jeff Johnson 2001-01-03 14:36:52 EST
*** Bug 23241 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.