From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaziou@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bug] latex export of link in footnotes
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 13:05:24 +0100
Message-ID: <87bosdlhff.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87bosdzl0e.fsf@cantab.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:54990)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1RQHvv-0002HX-9I
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:16:16 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1RQHnA-0000pB-Vg
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:07:10 -0500
Received: from mail-ww0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:41094)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <n.goaziou@gmail.com>) id 1RQHnA-0000p4-RN
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 07:07:08 -0500
Received: by wwe32 with SMTP id 32so4097363wwe.30
	for <emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 04:07:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <87bosdzl0e.fsf@cantab.net> (Christophe Rhodes's message of "Tue,
	15 Nov 2011 11:24:17 +0000")
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
To: Christophe Rhodes <csr21@cantab.net>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org

Hello,

Christophe Rhodes <csr21@cantab.net> writes:

> The below org file in 7.7 and today's git, when exported through LaTeX,
> results in an invalid link in the footnote, pointing to an undefined
> label named Foo.  The link in the body is correctly exported to the
> automatically-generated sec-1 label; HTML output seems correct in both
> cases.
>
> * Foo
>   Here is some text
> * Bar
>   Here is some more text[fn:1]; see section [[Foo]].
>
> * Footnotes
>
> [fn:1] see section [[Foo]].

Yes, this is a known bug, which has been discussed a few weeks ago in
this ML.

For now, I simply suggest to avoid using fuzzy links in footnotes
definitions. You can still use other mechanisms for internal links, like
custom id.


Regards,

-- 
Nicolas Goaziou