Bug#131336: more information
Stefan Ulrich <stefan.ulrich@dsl.pipex.com> wrote on Fri, 20 Jun 2003:
> Matt Swift <swift@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
>> As of tetex-bin 2.0.2-3, this bug is still present.
>
> (FWIW, I didn't see this bug before - I only recently subscribed
> to debian-tetex-maint, and had never seen any bug reports from
> Debian before. They never seemed to get reported upstream.)
Excuse us for that. The tetex maintainers in Debian were really
overworked - it's not just xdvi bugs which couldn't be handled as they
should have been. We're trying to catch up, and that's why I came across
this stuff.
>> Also, the setting of the X resource XDvi.not1lib and/or
>> XDvi*not1lib to "true" or "false" has no effect on the program.
>
> Righto, that's a typo in xdvi.c. It's no longer present in the
> current xdvik-22.74.2. The resource name was meant to be changed
> to `t1lib' instead of `not1lib', for consistency with the other
> resource names/options (e.g. `-nogrey'). FWIW, using
> XDvi*T1lib: false
> should work with xdvik-22.40v (the uppercase resource name is
> typed correctly).
So this will be fixed once tetex-3.0 enters Debian.
>> The following test file demonstrates that some fonts look very bad with
>> t1lib and look good without it.
> [...]
>> \documentclass{article}
>> \renewcommand\normalsize{\fontsize{5pt}{6pt}\selectfont}
>> \begin{document}
>> \sffamily
>> Hello world.
>> \end{document}
>
> I can't see any difference in output between `xdvi -not1lib' and
> `xdvi' with xdvik-22.40v, which AFAIK is the version used in
> tetex-2.0.2 (please verify with `xdvi.bin -version'). What's
> the problem with the display?
>
> Otherwise, if the xdvi used is really an older version, this sounds
> like a duplicate of #171344 to me.
Did you have some further discussion on this - is there more about the
bug besides the issue fixed in 22.40v?
Regards, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: