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

Zdenek Wagner zdenek.wagner at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 23:18:54 CEST 2012

2012/8/14 Pander <pander at opentaal.org>:
> 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:
>> * 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
>
Who will do it? Read Heiko's mail, it may take the whole day or even
more to test extensively the hyperref package. I know how difficult
and time consuming it is with my small packages. Without user response
sum bugs will be there unnoticed.

> 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.
>
Why not directly to the package maintainers? TL maintainers are
responsible for the infrastructure, not for the packages.

>>>>> 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
>>
>

--
Zdeněk Wagner
http://hroch486.icpf.cas.cz/wagner/
http://icebearsoft.euweb.cz