Re: Font problems with pdflatex
Joerg Sommer <joerg@alea.gnuu.de> wrote:
> 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?
Not without installing lmodern, or pts-cm-super from unstable (or
however it is called), or manually installing the LModern or CM Super
fonts from CTAN. Or of course by switching to a different postscript
font (texdoc psnfss2e).
>>>> 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.
My question is, what kind of scripts? If you have a skript that you use
to remove old cruft, and only checks for *.bak and *~, my answer is:
Very good.
There's a difference between *~ which is created e.g. by Emacs when you
edit a file, and *.postinst-bak which is created by our postinst script
when it tries to automatically change settings (e.g. because the old
syntax is invalid). In the first case, with manual editing, you
probably know that you are satisfied with all changes you made in /etc/
since you last used the script, and there's no harm if you remove *~.
On the other hand, with *.postinst-bak, you might not even know that a
change was made, let alone whether the automatics managed to migrate all
your local adaptations.
> If it is the old file, why not name it dpkg-old? Do you
> expect any conflicts?
Because it has never been touched by dpkg, and therefore shouldn't be
named after it. Furthermore, if there's a file *.dpkg-old that means
that dpkg showed you a question and you decided to install the new
maintainer version. Unfortunately, this happens frequently with buggy
packages, when in fact you didn't have any local changes. Therefore in
many cases removing *.dpkg-old does not destroy local adaptations.
*.postinst-old, on the other hand, is created if we actually do
something with the file in our maintainer scripts, and that probably
there was a local change.
Coming to pdftex.cfg.postinst-bak, there is in fact a small bug: We
should check the md5sum of the old file and just do nothing if it is
unchanged.
Thanks for reminding us,
Frank
--
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer
Reply to: