[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#225004: tetex-extra: Type1 fonts should be in a separate package

frank@kuesterei.ch (Frank Küster) wrote:

> Hm, didn't try all that. But what I did was install tetex-extra-fonts
> and xfonts-tetex built from Hilmars first patch and fire up
> Xfontsel. There are a lot of font families even without that, but I
> couldn't find any new ones. How are they called? And how are they
> distinguished from the similar fonts from libgnomeprint-data
> (/usr/share/fonts/{adobe,urw}-urw.font)? 

The names that you see in xfontsel are the XLFD names of the fonts. They
are those that you should have put in your

I repeat, if you don't have this file, the package is severely buggy

Other applications like gnome-character-map will display the PostScript
/FullName of the font, as extracted from the PFB file. Or perhaps this
is because I used the /FullName as the FontName defoma hint; in this
case, I should say gnome-character-map (presumably because of
fontconfig, which uses defoma) displays the value of this hint,
regardless of the PostScript /FullName.

> Yes, but it wouldn't harm to have a separate one, with just the

Sure. Just a little more work at the end of the course. And you have to
be sure to keep both copyright files in sync when new tetex releases are

> I would suggest we simply take the freedom to ignore these for the fonts
> packages. Anybody upgrading from pre-woody to sarge or later will have
> harder problems than just this.

Officially, upgrades from pre-woody to sarge are not supported, so this
should be OK... except if the user is upgrading from woody proper but
still has one of the old packages installed (potato packages that are
not in woody are *not* automatically removed when you upgrade to woody).
In this case, the Conflicts precisely ensures the package will be


Reply to: