3

I'm experiencing a (new) problem with Biblatex after switching computers (for information I am still running the same version 12.04 of Ubuntu but might have a newer version of TeX Live). It seems as though the "defernumbers=true" option used when loading the package does not have the same effect as it used to be. Formerly, after running Biber, three LaTeX runs allowed to reset the numbering of references at 1. It does not work any more. Here is a minimal working example

\documentclass[a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[francais,british]{babel}     
\usepackage[style=numeric,defernumbers=true,backend=biber]{biblatex}

\addbibresource{Biblio.bib}

\begin{document}
\begin{refsection}

The Plemelj-Sochocki theorem \cite{Appel}.

\printbibliography
\end{refsection}

\end{document}

with the contents of Biblio.bib as follows:

@book{
     Appel,
     author="W. Appel",
     title="Mathematics for Physics \& Physicists",
     edition="1",
     publisher="Princeton University Press",
     year="2007"
}

After a single post-Biber run of LaTeX, the reference has label 1 (but things are messy for a realistic document, because the defernumbers option needs two such runs). When I perform the necessary second post-Biber run, the label is raised to 2, and gets stuck there forever regardless of the number of reruns. It is clear from tests with more realistic documents that Biblatex keeps the total number of references in memory and, at the second run, starts the numbering from there. A third run used to correct this on my previous computer. Here is the output:

enter image description here

I hope the issue was stated clearly. Any help greatly appreciated.

8
  • I can verify that you example behaves in this incorrect way with the latest biblatex. May be it is a bug. Mar 4 '14 at 13:19
  • I have not seen this issue reported anywhere so your feedback is very valuable. This means the issue is consistent to some degree.
    – Vinsanity
    Mar 4 '14 at 14:36
  • The problem occurs here as well (biblatex 2.8a/biber 1.8), so I suggest you raise this issue with the biblatex bug tracker.
    – moewe
    Mar 4 '14 at 18:03
  • Thanks for the feedback and the suggestion. I reported the problem as advised.
    – Vinsanity
    Mar 4 '14 at 18:26
  • 1
    Re-opened, looking into it.
    – PLK
    Mar 5 '14 at 9:27
2

This was a bug. It should be fixed in 2.9 dev version on SF if someone could test?

11
  • I did finally manage to install the 2.9 version. Or so it seems, because it does work now. Many thanks for your quick, effective help. I hope it works for others.
    – Vinsanity
    Mar 7 '14 at 15:38
  • After having had to install a new system I'm running into the exact same problem. I'm using Biber 1.9 and BibLaTeX 2.9a. I tried to install BibLaTeX 3.0 as advised here tex.stackexchange.com/questions/182593/… but the .log file still mentions the 2.9a version instead of the 3.0.
    – Vinsanity
    Sep 10 '14 at 11:02
  • I am now running Biber 1.9 and BibLaTeX 3.0, as advised in the link just above, and the problem persists. Any suggestions very much appreciated. I'm sorry but I have to provisionally unaccept the answer.
    – Vinsanity
    Sep 15 '14 at 14:57
  • Hmm, can you try biber 2.0 dev version with biblatex 3.0? biber 1.9 isn't compatible with biblatex 3.0.
    – PLK
    Sep 16 '14 at 15:59
  • 1
    I have re-opened bug github.com/plk/biblatex/issues/213 for this. I have also updated the biblatex 3.0 DEV beta on Sourceforge with a fix if you can test it.
    – PLK
    Sep 27 '14 at 20:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.