Re: Font problems with pdflatex
Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
> Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
>> Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
>>
>>> But I can compile the file with a latex 2 system and the pdf[1] looks
>>> good, with the new latex 3 it[2] looks bad.
>>>
>>> [1] http://www.minet.uni-jena.de/~joergs/test-2.pdf
>>> [1] http://www.minet.uni-jena.de/~joergs/test-3.pdf
>>>
>>> Build of test-2.pdf:
>> [...]
>>> (/usr/share/texmf/tex/latex/ae/ae.sty
>>
>> You must have made some local changes (e.g. to pdftex.cfg) that
>> automatically loads this style, which no longer work in teTeX-3.0.
>
> No. I added it to the example. Does this mean I should not use ae
> anymore? Why is it in the package, if it's broken?
You can use it, of course. The disadvantages are still there, namely
that you won't be able to use the text search in PDF files on words
containing umlauts (because in the PDF file, "Küster" is not one word,
but three: K, u+dots, ster, and a search for "Küster" won't find it)
The point was that in the 2.0.2 case ae.sty was loaded (resulting in the
Bluesky fonts being used, and included in Type1 format), in 3.0 it
wasn't, so the Metafont CM fonts were used, and included in Type3
format.
>>> The same file with latex 2.0.2c (Sarge) and one time with latex 3.0
>>> produce differt pdffiles. Why?
So am I right to assume that it was not really the *same* file, because
in the 3.0 case \usepackage{ae} was missing?
>> Have a look at /etc/texmf/pdftex/, there should be a file /etc/texmf/pdftex/
>> pdftex.cfg.postinst-bak. What does it contain?
>
> I don't have /etc/texmf/pdftex/. BTW: Why you name your backup files
> -bak? This is really uncommon and might confuse some scripts. Why not use
> .bak?
The extension is not -bak, but .postinst-bak, and this is chosen in
analogy to .dpkg-new and .dpkg-old. I don't know of any "tradition"
here, what problems are you thinking of?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: