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

Robin Fairbairns Robin.Fairbairns at cl.cam.ac.uk
Tue Aug 14 17:44:55 CEST 2012

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.
> >
> > wouldn't help; i've just (a) updated tl, (b) run your test with xelatex
> > (and pdflatex and plain latex) without any problem.
>
> Here not :(
>
> $date > Tue Aug 14 17:10:46 CEST 2012 > > # tlmgr update --all > tlmgr: package repository > http://ftp.snt.utwente.nl/pub/software/tex/systems/texlive/tlnet > tlmgr: saving backups to /usr/local/texlive/2012/tlpkg/backups > tlmgr: no updates available > >$ cat hyperref.tex
> \documentclass{article}
> \usepackage{hyperref}
> \begin{document}
> asdf
> \end{document}
>
> $xelatex hyperref.tex > This is XeTeX, Version 3.1415926-2.4-0.9998 (TeX Live 2012) > restricted \write18 enabled. > entering extended mode > (./hyperref.tex > [...] > ! LaTeX Error: Missing \begin{document}. > > See the LaTeX manual or LaTeX Companion for explanation. > Type H <return> for immediate help. > ... > > l.1591 \DeclareTextCommand[\textBeam}{P > U}{\9043\223}%* U+2393 sounds to me as if i'm using a more up-to-date tl than you are. (note i take my updates over nfs from the ctan server in the next corridor.) looking at your offending package, i see$ ls -l kpsewhich puenc.def
-rw-r--r--. 1 rf10 rf10 122261 2012-08-13 23:37 /local/texlive/2012/texmf-dist/tex/latex/hyperref/puenc.def

i.e., the package was installed yesterday, and would have appeared for
the first time in this morning's mirror.  are you *sure* you have an up
to date texlive?

> What example do you use?

the null document you previously posted.  i've now added some text in
the document body, but it plainly has no relevance

> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > if we're going to run tests for every package that's updated, there's
> > going to need to be an awful lot more work done on the tl release
> > infrastructure, including writing a test suite per package.
>
> All packages should include their own tests.

in an ideal world.  very few do (you wouldn't want many of them -- for
example, the latex tests are of the same order of size as latex itself).

in the real world, with software being developed by people in their
spare time, your "should" is one of those inaccessible pies, floating in
the sky, that no-one can get at.

> The tests I refer to are
> for integration testing checking if all packages can coexist peacefully.

but *everyone* knows that there are packages that can't coexist --
several (ones doing the same job in different ways) you wouldn't even
_want_ to coexist.

> > sounds excessive, to me.

i agree with myself.

you've not even mentioned when you last updated, nor which repository
you were updating from.  (have you tried updating since you first
observed the effect, even?)

robin