Bug#77530: use bluesky fonts by default
Hi Martin,
are you still reachable under this e-mail address?
Four years ago, you reported the following bug against the Debian tetex
packages:
Martin Maciaszek <mmaciaszek@gmx.net> schrieb:
> Package: tetex-extra
> Version: 1.0.2+20000804-2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Tetex should use the bluesky fonts when tetex-extra is installed. Xdvi
> displays dvis using type1 fonts without problems and it makes the
> postscript files smaller and easier to process. Especially postscript
> printers are happier with type1 outlines.
Since then, things have changed: There are a couple of other free
CM-like type1 fonts (lm, which is also available as a Debian package,
and cm-super). Therefore the choice which should be used must be up to
the user, and I have read some arguments against bluesky fonts.
Furthermore, Brian Mays has expressed an other view on the issue:
,----
| I strongly disagree here. Dvips should not use the bluesky fonts by
| default. I can understand that the Type 1 fonts are preferred when the
| -Ppdf option is used, since Type 1 fonts look much better than bitmapped
| fonts in acrobat. But when I'm not using this option, I *prefer* to use
| the Metafont fonts over the Bluesky fonts. Personally, I think they
| look better, especially when viewed with gv.
|
| If you want the bluesky fonts all the time, a quick
|
| echo "p +bsr.map" >> ~/.dvipsrc
|
| will do the trick, or you can uncomment the appropriate lines in
| config.ps.
`----
It seems our users cannot agree what they want. Furthermore it's easy to
configure current tetex packages so that they will use type1 fonts
wherever possible.
I think we should close this bug. If you agree, please do this, since
you are the original submitter, by sending mail to
77530-done@bugs.debian.org.
Thank you, Frank
--
Frank Küster, Biozentrum der Univ. Basel
Abt. Biophysikalische Chemie
Reply to: