Re: 关于CJK的新包
Hi Danai,
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 11:34:11PM +0100, Danai SAE-HAN wrote:
> The latex-cjk-chinese-arphic-* packages do not provide the TTF: at
> build time, it uses the TTF provided by the Debian packages.
Of course. As the .pfb files already have the outline of the glyphs,
there is no point shipping the .ttf file. I suppose tfm-arphic-*
packages ship the .ttf file because it need it to genenrate the PK files
on the fly, although the .ttf file is probably just a symlink (as I
said, I was lazy and didn't check :-).
> > Also since I am asking lazy questions - I've heard inquiries on IRC
> > about why your packages are arch:i386 (which is essentially arch:any)
> > instead of arch:all. Would you please explain that (or, if you've
> > already explained in your package, just tell me which package to look
> > at. :-)
>
> Interesting. I didn't really know what architecture I had to use, and
> it seemed reasonable to me to use "any". The Debian source package
> "cjk" needs to compile a few programs, so I suppose that it's "any" or
> "i386".
A package seldom needs to specify arch:i386. Architecture dependent
packages should just use arch:any, while architecture independent
packages should use arch:all. More information can be found at:
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Architecture
> As far as the font packages are concerned, yes, perhaps arch:all
> would be a better choice indeed. I'll change it for
> latex-cjk-chinese-arphic and latex-cjk-japanese-wadalab. Thanks for
> the tip.
Yeah, that sounds right. I'll defintitely check this when I try out
your packages (which should be soon), since it seems you need help on
this area. :-)
P.S.: I'm subscribed to the list, so no need to cc: me, thanks.
Ming
2006.01.04
Reply to: