Re: Font problems with pdflatex

[Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de>]

Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
> Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
>
>> Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> wrote:
>>> Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
>
> 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)

Ahh, is there a better way?

>>>> 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?

No. It was the same file on different hosts. The problem was...aehmm, I
don't know. It was fixed by updmap.

>>> 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?

That scripts expect to find backup files by searching for *.bak or *~ but
not by *-bak. If it is the old file, why not name it dpkg-old? Do you
expect any conflicts?

-- 
Wenn du nur einen Hammer hast, sieht jedes Problem aus wie ein Nagel.